Segment 1 Of 3 Next Hearing Segment(2)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
43–492 CC
1998
FOREIGN POLICY REFORM ACT: MARKUP OF H.R. 1486
MARKUP
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
APRIL 30, MAY 1, AND MAY 6, 1997
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
WILLIAM GOODLING, Pennsylvania
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
PETER T. KING, New York
JAY KIM, California
STEVEN J. CHABOT, Ohio
MARSHALL ''MARK'' SANFORD, South Carolina
MATT SALMON, Arizona
AMO HOUGHTON, New York
TOM CAMPBELL, California
JON FOX, Pennsylvania
JOHN McHUGH, New York
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
LEE HAMILTON, Indiana
SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
TOM LANTOS, California
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
HOWARD BERMAN, California
GARY ACKERMAN, New York
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
PAT DANNER, Missouri
EARL HILLIARD, Alabama
WALTER CAPPS, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
STEVE ROTHMAN, New Jersey
BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JIM DAVIS, Florida
RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff
MICHAEL H. VAN DUSEN, Democratic Chief of Staff
STEVEN RADEMAKER, Chief Counsel
JOHN MACKEY, Investigative Counsel
FRANK RECORD, Senior Professional Staff Member
J. WALKER ROBERTS, Senior Professional Staff Member
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
HILLEL WEINBERG, Senior Professional Staff Member and Counsel
MARK KIRK, Counsel
NANCY BLOOMER, Administrative Director
PAUL BERKOWITZ, Professional Staff Member
PETER BROOKES, Professional Staff Member
DEBORAH BODLANDER, Professional Staff Member
MARK GAGE, Professional Staff Member
KRISTEN GILLEY, Professional Staff Member
JOHN HERZBERG, Professional Staff Member
LESTER MUNSON, Professional Staff Member
ROGER NORIEGA, Professional Staff Member
LAURA RUSH, Legislative Information Coordinator
CAROLINE G. COOPER, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
APPENDIX
Text of H.R. 1486
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Mr. Houghton
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Mr. Ackerman
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Mr. Goodling
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Mr. Hamilton
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Ms. McKinney
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Mr. Gejdenson
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Mr. Ackerman
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Mr. Ackerman
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Mr. Payne
Substitute to the amendment offered by Mr. Payne offered by Mr. Royce
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Mr. Gilman
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Mr. Hastings
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Mr. Hastings
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Mr. Sherman
Amendment offered by Mr. Burton to the amendment offered by Mr. Sherman
Amendment en bloc offered by Mr. Gilman with the concurrence of Mr. Hamilton
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Mr. Houghton
Amendment offered by Mr. Campbell to amendment offered by Mr. Houghton
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Mr. Lantos
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Mr. Menendez
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Mr. Hastings
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Mr. Menendez
Amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter to the amendment offered by Mr. Menendez
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Mr. Campbell
Amendment to the substitute offered by Mr. Burton offered by Mr. Sherman
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Mr. Berman
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Mr. Ackerman
Second amendment en bloc offered by Mr. Gilman with concurrence of Mr. Hamilton
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Mr. Rohrabacher
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Amendment offered by Mr. Hyde to the amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher
Third amendment en bloc offered by Mr. Gilman with concurrence of Mr. Hamilton
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Mr. Ackerman
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Mr. Campbell
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Mr. Hamilton
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Mr. Ackerman
Amendment to H.R. 1486 offered by Mr. Sanford
Text of H. Con. Res. 73
Text of H. Res. 103
H. Res. 103 with amendment
Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman
Statement of Mr. Ackerman regarding the Inter-American Foundation
Statement of Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. Rothman regarding Israel's membership in the United Nations
43–492 CC
1998
FOREIGN POLICY REFORM ACT: MARKUP OF H.R. 1486
MARKUP
BEFORE THE
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
APRIL 30, MAY 1, AND MAY 6, 1997
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
FOREIGN POLICY REFORM ACT: MARKUP OF H.R. 1486
FOREIGN POLICY REFORM ACT: MARKUP OF H.R. 1486
Wednesday, April 30, 1997
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:07 a.m. in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC., Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman (chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order. Members will take their seat. The Committee on International Relations meets today in open session pursuant to notice for the purpose of marking up H.R. 1486, the Foreign Policy Reform Act, which was introduced yesterday and referred to the Committee. The first thing the Chair would like to do is to welcome a new Member, the Honorable Jim Davis of the State of Florida. Mr. Hamilton, would you like to introduce our new colleague?
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We are indeed pleased to welcome to the Committee today Congressman Jim Davis. He is from Florida. I think he takes the seat that Sam Gibbons held for many years. He is already marked himself as a leader in the freshman class. He has been elected the president of that class. I have no doubt at all that he is going to be a very solid Member of the Congress and of this Committee and we certainly look forward to his service in the Congress and his service on this Committee.
Chairman GILMAN. Welcome to our Committee, Jim. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. We look forward to working with you, and we hope you will enjoy the work of the Committee. Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Luther, another relatively new Member, is elected to the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Davis, is elected to our Subcommittee on Africa.
I would like to take just a brief moment to discuss some of our procedural matters, after which I will again yield to our distinguished ranking Democratic Member, Mr. Hamilton.
The bill that we will be putting before the Committee is the product of extensive consultation on both sides of the aisle and with the Administration as well. It is an attempt to be a consensus document. It deserves the support of all of our Members of the Committee and I hope to have your support in Committee as well as on the floor.
But it is, of course, a work product. It is imperfect. And I appreciate the Members who want to speak to the bill and to offer amendments. We have already an indication of over 50 amendments; I hope we can en bloc some of them. I have been open to amendments and have accepted many requests from both sides of the aisle, including amendments that we have questions about but seem to be supported by consensus of our Members.
What is left are, first, amendments that we could not accept either because there is some opposition to them or because they would upset the consensus nature of the bill.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Second, amendments that Members choose to offer so that they are identified publicly with them.
And finally, amendments that we have not received as yet.
I would ask Members with amendments to make certain that the staff has reviewed them. First, the staff can apprise you of any technical problems with the amendments. And second, I believe that the managers of the legislation are entitled to review them and to have a chance to review your ideas and give you their considered reactions.
It is my intention we proceed in a reasonable order and at a reasonable pace. We can finish this bill if not today, then by tomorrow and we need to get to the floor promptly because of the limited windows we had on the floor.
I am going to propose a unanimous consent agreement in a moment and that consent agreement has been cleared with the ranking minority Member and does not constrain the rights of Members. I will ask that the bill be read by title and not by section and that each title when designated may be deemed read and open to amendment at any point.
I am further requesting that with the consent of the ranking Democratic Member, Mr. Hamilton, I be permitted on a case by case basis to offer en bloc amendments touching any portion of the bill.
And finally, we would ask that if the Committee agrees to a motion that the bill as amended, be reported to the House with the recommendation that the bill as amended do pass, that the Committee be deemed to have adopted an amendment in the nature of substitute consisting of striking all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the text of the bill as agreed upon by this Committee. This bill will allow the Committee on rules and the full house to read the bill we report as a single piece without having to deal with the effect of cutting or biting amendments.
Does the gentleman from Indiana have any comments on these procedural matters at this time?
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do. First of all, let me simply commend the Chairman for the process that he initiated to bring the bill to the Committee today. He mentioned that there has been extensive consultation. He is right about that. I understand the Chairman just wanted my comments at this moment about the procedural situation. Let me just say I am in agreement with the Chairman's observations with regard to the procedure.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton.
My colleagues, I am pleased to have the opportunity now to present the Foreign Policy Reform Act to the Committee for its consideration. As I stated earlier, it is a product of hundreds of hours of effort by our Members and staff and by the Administration. It has benefited by the input of witnesses at hearings, participants in briefings and a great deal of oversight accomplished both this year and in past years. We also thank the Administration for their input.
This bill will reauthorize at appropriate, defensible funding levels, programs that are in the vital interest of our nation. Our foreign policy cannot be privatized or turned back to the states. We need to have a robust diplomatic presence abroad to develop markets, to maintain stability and to protect our friends in the still dangerous world, to protect the environment and to put into effect the humanitarian instincts of our American people.
I want to ask that as we proceed in the spirit of Senator Arthur Vandenburg, whose picture I have here, a Republican who led the Congress in a bipartisan spirit after the end of the second World War. I do not think that Senator Vandenburg threw money at problems. Nor did he shrink from principle disagreements from the Administration for the protection of the appropriate role of Congress.
Senator Vandenburg recognized that for our nation we must play a strong role in the world stage to prevent war and achieve its interests. So, I urge our colleagues to work together in the spirit of compromise.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
This bill is divided into two divisions.
Division A contains the traditional foreign assistance provisions as well as place holders for agency consolidation provisions and international agency reform. And I will discuss in more detail those provisions in a moment.
The bill accomplishes serious reforms in the foreign policy process. It provides, for example, the Administration come up with projected graduation dates from foreign assistance for countries that are receiving our aid. The bill when finally enacted will accomplish the goal of consolidating certain foreign affairs agencies, and I congratulate the President on his decision to move forward on this issue as well as our good Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright.
I also think that one would be hard pressed to look at the President's proposal for agency consolidation and to point to serious differences between it in our program set out in the legislation that this Committee passed during the 104th Congress.
We are not able to bring an agency consolidation provision before the Committee today, mainly because the Administration came forward with its plan so late in the game. We do have a place holder in the bill, one that blackens the line between the administrator of AID and the Secretary of State.
A place holder abolishes a moribund International Development Cooperation Agency. We do not intend to provide for any greater independence for AID than is the present case today. Our intention though is to place AID under the direction of the Secretary of State which is what the Administration announced and is requested. And that is what we are intending to do.
We intend to replace this provision when we get to the House floor with an agency consolidation provision that we hope to work out with the Administration before going to the floor. I understand the Administration is presently working on the details of those measures and we will be soliciting the input of our Members as it is further developed. We intend to work toward a consensus approach there as well.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
The bill also does not provide for the full reforms we need in international organizations. Accordingly, it does not provide the funding requested for arrears either. The Committee staff has been hard at work with the Administration and the Senate in a leadership and managed process to come up with a package of reforms that the Administration can support and that will give it the leverage it needs to gain consensus in a relevant international organization.
When that process is completed, we will seek by means of a floor amendment to put both the agreed U.N. conditions, the reform conditions in the agreed authorization levels into our bill. In the interim, we are putting a placeholder in the bill.
Division B of the bill is a traditional department of state authorization. It reflects the hard work of Chairman Chris Smith, Subcommittee ranking Democratic Member, Tom Lantos, and their staffs, and the efforts of the Members of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. I especially want to note the hard work of Chairman Smith and his willingness to cooperate with the Chair in crafting a bill which effectively addresses many areas about which we share a mutual concern.
Let me be clear that Division B consists of the provisions in the Subcommittee bill H.R. 1253 reported under Chairman Smith's leadership. The Subcommittee product has been altered only to accommodate bipartisan agreements in a few cases, often in an effort to accommodate the Administration.
I have said openly that keeping the two elements in the bill together will increase our opportunity for this measure to become law, hopefully for the first time since 1985.
Mr. Smith, who I thank again, has chaired a large number of Subcommittee hearings during which he received testimony on rather mundane issues relating to the operations of the Department of State, USIA and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. It is important an adequate oversight be exercised over these matters and we appreciate his efforts and that of his staff.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Division B very adequately—and frankly, generously—funds the operations of the Department of State and the related agencies. The overall funding levels in this division are essentially at the Administration's request. There has been some redeployment of funds with these accounts and I hope that the Administration is prepared to live with a bit less than 100 percent of its requests of the operations of State Department and can make do with 99 percent which is what it will be getting under this measure.
I hope the Administration can take ''yes'' for an answer and exercise some restraint here. There are not many places in the budget that are getting a total of a 10-percent increase over the past 2 years, as is the case of the State Department's account.
I would like to note to my colleagues on my side of the aisle who may be a bit dismayed at the funding levels in several portions of this measure that we had to face reality, that the Administration is an exceedingly strong hand to play. And in plain English, we need their consent to get our bill enacted into law.
Accordingly, we have acceded to the Administration's requests in a number of areas, but at the same time have endeavored to work to get some important advances in areas of interest to our Members. We intend to defend these authorization levels on the floor. But if we do not get adequate funding from the Budget Committee, I know we will be facing cuts in these accounts and we will conform the bill to the budget resolution. I repeat: we will conform the bill to our budget resolution.
I do want to urge our Members who are offering amendments that add to the cost of this bill to offer offsetting amendments that make cuts elsewhere. I do not think that the mood of the Committee is going to be receptive to any increases in our bottom line.
I would also like to point out to Members who are concerned about these figures as being too high to keep in mind that they are authorizations only. Members will have an additional opportunity to make some cuts if they so desire when the appropriation bills come before the House.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
This has been our practice in the past. I will likely back the decisions in the Appropriations Committee, so long as they are within the levels of this bill. But the Members may have other ideas and we will defend their rights on the floor.
So let me state to our Members that I would like to see some restraint exercised today, cutting funding levels in a bill that is not reported out of Committee or not passed on the floor, not enacted, is not the way to influence the final consent on this measure. And adding funding to a bill that is not enacted does not do any good either.
No one will bother to read our Committee report if our bill fails passage.
We also do not want to overly earmark this bill. Earmarks are generally opposed by the Administration and by the Committee on Appropriations which sets the minimum levels for a program as being within their jurisdiction.
We are going to try to stay out of each other's turf. I have successfully held off some of their authorizing during the last Congress and will vigorously oppose any authorizations in an appropriations bill this year. By the same token, however, we need to stay out of the Appropriations Committee's jurisdiction.
So as we begin, I would like to thank our colleagues and their staff for all of their good work, of our Members as well as the staff of the Office of Legislative Counsel, Ms. Yvonne Haywood and Mr. Mark Synnes for their expert assistance in bringing us to this point.
I now recognize the distinguished ranking Member, Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin simply by commending you for the process that you have initiated here to bring this bill before the Committee today. I also want to join you in commending the majority and the minority staffs. They have been working very hard to develop this bill and to build consensus for it, and the Members of this Committee should be appreciative of their efforts. A lot of progress has been made.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Of course, it is obvious to all of us that the final shape of the bill will not be known until we complete the markup. And so far as I personally am concerned, I do not know whether I can support the bill until we reach that point.
As the Chairman has already indicated, the Committee's position or strength and viability as a committee depend in very large measure on moving this legislation forward. And that means that we have to draft a bill that will get not only a majority support here in the House and in the Senate, but the approval of the President as well. And as recent past history would suggest, that is a very tall order to achieve.
I am going to work to produce a bipartisan bill. I would like to produce a bipartisan bill. I was very pleased to receive the letter from the Administration just a few moments ago which indicates that they are committed to working with this Committee and with the Congress to try to produce a bill. I appreciated Secretary Albright's call last night which indicated her willingness to work with the Committee as well.
I want to see the President's funding levels supported in full. I believe we need to do that to assert American leadership in the world. I will be opposing most of the funding cuts that are offered, if they are offered. And I want to make sure with respect to the various policy provisions and directives in this bill that they do not tie the hands of the President and the Secretary of the State in the conduct of American foreign policy.
There are several areas that I think are particularly sensitive and Members should be alert to them. They are the areas that will provide the greatest risk of losing the support of the Administration and losing the support of many of us. Obviously one of those areas is the total amount of resources provided in the bill.
I am not exactly sure where this bill comes out at this point, but I think it is $200 to $300 million less than the President has requested. I just want to say that this is an extremely sensitive area to the Administration. It is to me as well. And whether or not I can support the bill, in large part, is going to depend on what happens with regard to these resources.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Second, I think I agree with the comments the Chairman made with regard to the United Nations. He knows and I know that a bipartisan leadership task force is working now to develop a plan for paying the arrearages to the United Nations and putting into place some acceptable reforms. And I have been very pleased to work with the Chairman and other Members of the House on that task force.
But how the United Nations is eventually handled here becomes I think a major point of importance in this bill.
Likewise, a third point is reorganization. The White House has announced a plan for the consolidation and reorganization of the foreign policy establishment and the foreign policy agencies. The broad outline so far as I know has bipartisan support. But it is also my understanding that we have only the broad outlines. We do not have the details and the executive branch is developing a more detailed plan over the next 120 days. I do not think this bill should prejudge or seek to micromanage that process and we have to be careful not to tie the hands of the Administration too much with respect to reorganization.
A fourth area that deserves special attention, of course, is the one that has hung this bill up many times in the past. And that is the whole question of family planning. It is a very contentious issue. Members are deeply divided on it. We have voted on it again and again.
The Administration has very strong views on it. And unless the bill contains provisions acceptable to the Administration, you are not going to have a bill. It is a very crucial point with regard to procuring legislation here.
I also join, and this is a fifth area of concern, the Chairman's comments with regard to earmarks. I fully understand that earmarks are almost always well intentioned. They almost always are very popular. And I myself have supported them on occasion. But I do think it is quite possible to skew overall programs, to reduce the flexibility of the administrators in carrying out a program to the point where they are often hamstrung if we are excessive in our Congressional mandates. We can also take very precious resources away from other programs that are not earmarked that also are very worthy.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Finally, let me just say that we have to keep our eye on country policy provisions. This bill gives a chance for every Member of Congress to send a signal to almost any country anywhere in the world. And there is not a country out there which receives assistance whose performance in some areas I would not have problems with and I am sure that is true of other Members as well.
Now, the problem comes, the rub comes, when you put all of those conditions together in a bill. You restrict and cut and eliminate programs in a way which is counter-productive to American foreign policy. You just simply over-burden the bill.
If we become excessive here with a lot of these policy provisions, then I am confident we sink the bill in the process.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the cooperation you have given to us on the minority side. It is good to work with you. We have had a good working relationship over a period of years. We will certainly continue that during this bill. And I look forward to working with you to see if we can enhance the bill, make it even better. And are prepared now to proceed with the markup.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. As I have noted to Mr. Hamilton before, we are willing to be flexible on the funding and we will continue to work with the minority as best we can.
The Chair now lays the bill before the Committee. The clerk will report the title of the bill.
Ms. BLOOMER. H.R. 1486, a bill to consolidate international affairs agencies, to reform foreign assistance programs, to authorize appropriations for foreign assistance programs and for the Department of State and related agencies for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 and for other purposes.
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the first reading of the bill will be dispensed with. The Chair on its behalf and on behalf of the ranking Democratic Member asks unanimous consent to do the following.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
The bill will be read by title and not by sections. Each title when designated will be deemed read and open to amendment at any point. With the consent of the ranking Democratic Member in each instance, the Chairman or his designee will be permitted to offer en bloc amendments touching any portion of the bill.
And further, that if the Committee agrees to a motion that the bill as amended be reported to the House with the recommendation do pass or without recommendation, that the Committee will be deemed to have adopted the amendment in the nature of the substitute consisting of striking all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the text of the bill as previously amended by the Committee, and as having reported the bill, as amended by that substitute, to the House with the same recommendation.
Is there any objection? If not——
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Yes, Mr. Berman.
Mr. BERMAN. No, I am not objecting, but just reserving the right to object, just to ask a question. Am I to understand by this request that if this unanimous consent is carried that once we pass a title other than the en bloc amendment that you or your designee might offer, one cannot offer an amendment to that title?
Chairman GILMAN. If it is affected by the en bloc amendment, it would not be. But as we have stated and agreed to, we will be proceeding by titles. And when the titles close, it will take a unanimous consent to go back if there is an objection.
So I would ask that Members please pay attention and try to keep your amendments within the title so we do not get involved in any further debate.
Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Is there any objection? If not, it is so ordered. The clerk will now read the bill for amendment.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America and Congress assembled, Section 1, short title. This act may be cited as the Foreign Policy Reform Act. Section 2, organization of——
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the matter down through the end of this paragraph is deemed as having been read. The clerk will designate the first title of the bill.
Ms. BLOOMER. Division A, International Affairs Agency consolidation, United Nations reform, foreign assistance reform and foreign assistance authorizations. Title I general provisions.
Chairman GILMAN. Are there any amendments to Title I? If there are no amendments, the clerk will designate the next title.
Ms. BLOOMER. Title II, consolidation of certain foreign assistance agencies.
Chairman GILMAN. Are there any amendments to Title II?
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Berman.
Mr. BERMAN. I move to strike the last word.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BERMAN. The Section 211, the abolition of the U.S. International Development Cooperation Agency. Other than fundamentally eliminating IDCA and requiring the director of AID to report to the Secretary of State, does this provision make any other specific organizational change?
Chairman GILMAN. No, it is placeholder language only, Mr. Berman.
Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Are there any further amendments to Title II? If there are no amendments to Title II, we will proceed to Title III.
Ms. BLOOMER. Title III, foreign assistance reform.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Houghton is recognized to offer an amendment. The clerk will distribute Mr. Houghton's amendment. The clerk please report the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Houghton in Section 305 of the bill in the matter preceding paragraph one in Section 108(a)(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as proposed to be added by such Section 305, strike should and insert——
Chairman GILMAN. I ask unanimous consent of further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, the language here relates to the microenterprise program. And what we are trying to do is conform the language on the proposed USAID monitoring system of the microenterprise development grant assistance program with existing laws, specifically the so-called Government Performance and Results Act.
So the bill currently reads, in order to maximize the sustainable development impact of the assistance authorized under Subsection (a)(1), the administrator should establish a monitoring system. And my amendment simply changes the should to a shall.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Houghton. I would like to note the Chair supports the Houghton amendment on microcredit reporting. It is my understanding that it clearly states that AID should measure microcredit language and its impact is already required by the Results Act which is already law. I think my colleagues all know my support for microcredit. Accordingly, I urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment and commend the gentleman from New York for offering it.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is now before the Committee. All in favor signify in the usual manner.
[Chorus of Ayes.]
Chairman GILMAN. Opposed? The amendment is agreed to. Are there any further amendments?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Ackerman. Strike Section 302 relating to the prohibition on assistance to countries that consistently oppose the United States' position in the United Nation's General Assembly and redesignate subsequent sections and the Table of Contents accordingly.
Chairman GILMAN. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, sometimes during our procedures, we have things that wind up in legislation that sound right by title and upon closer perusal when we actually examine what we are actually doing with some of these provisions that we have real doubts and reservations and this is one such case.
I would strike the provisions of the bill that claim to prohibit U.S. assistance to countries that ''consistently oppose the U.S. position in the U.N.''
As I read the bill, Mr. Chairman, and this provision in particular, it would affect four countries and four countries only. Those countries being Cuba, North Korea, India and Syria. Of that list, Mr. Chairman, India is the only country that receives the type of assistance that would be cut off. Let me be clear. This amendment is, this provision is aimed specifically at India and the aid that we provide to that country and everything else is window dressing.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
I do not believe that focusing on just voting records is a fair indication of the extent to which other countries support the United States' position in the General Assembly. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, 73 percent of all of the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly are adopted by consensus or unanimous consent which means automatically all of the countries that are part of the U.N. have automatically agreed on every vote 73 percent of the time.
Chairman GILMAN. Will the gentleman yield? I am going to ask the gentleman if he would withhold his debate until Mr. Goodling arrives. We have called him and this is his proposal. And I would welcome the gentleman withholding his debate until such time as Mr. Goodling arrives so that he can respond to the gentleman's concerns.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, we all had to be here at a time specific.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Goodling has a markup in his Committee.
Mr. ACKERMAN. We all have other committees.
Chairman GILMAN. As he gets here——
Mr. ACKERMAN. I would prefer, Mr. Chairman, to be able to continue the discussion and the debate and when Mr. Goodling gets here at the appropriate time the Chairman certainly can recognize him to make his comments.
Chairman GILMAN. Well, if the gentleman prefers to do it in the absence of Mr. Goodling. Mr. Goodling has arrived. And will you repeat your concern for Mr. Goodling?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes, my concern repeated for Mr. Goodling is a brash cloaked attempt to affect only and exclusively the USAID provided to the country of India by including them in with a small group of nations, mostly rogue regimes that do not support the United States and cloaks it in terms of how these countries support the United States by voting in the General Assembly. And I did point out that in 73 percent of the votes in the United States, India votes with the United States, but those votes are by consensus or unanimous consent.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
No country, no country at all in the United Nations, has a score of below 75 percent therefore in recent years. And that the U.N. voting record is only one of many indicators of a country's relationship with our nation.
Our Administration already factors in the voting record in making decisions on foreign assistance, but it also has to consider cooperation on human rights, counter narcotics, counter terrorism, the environment, defense, trade and a multitude of other issues.
An AID cutoff is too blunt an instrument to succeed in achieving intended purpose and may be counter productive to U.S. assistance including that to India, promotes our policy interests around the world.
Assistance is provided because it serves our interest and is not intended or should it be intended as an outright bribe for a vote or an unwarranted reward.
Clearly, Mr. Chairman, India should not be put in the same class with these rogue states that I have listed. India is a thriving sister democracy which is celebrating its 50th year of independence this year. U.S. assistance to India serves our interests by addressing transnational problems such as AIDS, the environmental degradation, and I note India is making continued progress in the area of human rights. And even with successive coalition governments, it is pursuing economic liberalization which will promote economic growth and provide U.S. companies with economic opportunity.
Let me be very clear, Mr. Chairman, the threshold dictated by this provision puts India just 2 percent below the voting threshold that we would demand as obeisance to U.S. policy. And I think that it is an unseemly way to conduct our foreign policy. The only effect that this provision, Mr. Chairman, will have, will be to strain our relations with India and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to strike this section.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like at this point to ask if there is a representative of the Administration here who could——
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Well, the gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Goodling.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Yes, Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. You recognized me and I made a request.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. We will come back to that in just a moment. Mr. Goodling.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I am in a very important markup across the hall. I believe that we can expect anybody who receives aid from the United States to vote with us at least 25 percent of the time in the United Nations. What we are saying currently is even though they only vote with us 25 percent or less, their ideas of relationships between nations, their whole system of brutality should be overlooked by the United States.
Now, let me tell you who they are. And I cannot imagine Mr. Ackerman would not have real concern about Iran, Iraq, Syria. I am not talking about money from India. I am talking about Iran, Iraq, Syria.
Now, what else do we do in the bill? We do a lot of things in the bill. We say that——
Mr. ACKERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLING [continuing]. the Secretary of State——
Mr. ACKERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLING [continuing]. determines that if the country has changed leadership and policies, he can waive the provision. We say if the Secretary of State determines that despite the voting pattern, the provision is necessary to promote U.S. foreign policy objectives, he may waive the provision. I mean, we have given the President of the United States every opportunity——
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. ACKERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLING [continuing]. to waive a provision. And how we can then turn around and say that countries like Iran, Iraq, and Syria are just wonderful partners. They are promoting the most great relationship——
Mr. ACKERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLING [continuing]. They have nothing to do with terrorism and spreading it all over the region.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Will the gentleman——
Mr. GOODLING. We have given the waiver permissions to make very sure the President of the United States has flexibility in the conduct of foreign policy.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLING. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. I would just like to thank the gentleman for reminding Mr. Ackerman that he should have concerns about Iran, Iraq and Syria.
And I would like to remind the gentleman that in the bill, as Mr. Ackerman reads it, there is no U.S. aid for Iran, Iraq and Syria and the gentleman is directing this specifically at India. Thank you.
Mr. GOODLING. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Sure.
Mr. GOODLING. What it is is a signal to all countries that we expect a change in their voting pattern in the United Nations. If they cannot vote with us 25 percent of the time, obviously they do not have the same ideals that we do, that we hold dear. That is why I voted against most favored nation status for China. I do not believe that China showed the kind of things that we believe in and that we should stand firm on in relationship to representing the free people or standing for people who want to be free throughout this entire world. I just cannot believe that we cannot expect them——
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. BERMAN. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. GOODLING [continuing]. 25 percent of the time. The other 75 percent, they can call us anything under the sun. But for 25 percent of the time, they ought to at least be able to support us.
Mr. BERMAN. Would the gentlemen yield for a question?
Mr. GOODLING. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. BERMAN. Would the gentleman suggest that there are already statutory prohibitions, not just a lack of aid but prohibitions, on giving aid to any terrorist country—Syria, Iran, North Korea or countries that support terrorism. They are ineligible by statute for aid. Is the gentleman suggesting that if they improve their U.N. voting record these countries now should get aid, because otherwise I am not clear what the gentleman's point is.
The gentleman cites China. China is a country that apparently meets the criteria of the gentleman's amendment. Does that argue that China should get foreign assistance from the United States?
Mr. GOODLING. I make it very, very clear that we expect those in the United Nations to be with us at least 25 percent of the time. All of our allies are with us 50, 80, 90 percent of the time. It is those who are causing the major upheavals throughout the world, that are not voting with us 25 percent of the time and here is a signal to all of those countries that human rights are important to the United States, very important, and we do not take a back seat to anybody in those areas.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. GOODLING. And so it is a message to those in the United Nations that there are principles we stand for and we would expect that if there is any relationship between the United States and those countries, at least 25 percent of the time they should be with us.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton?
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I support the amendment. I do think that the provision that Mr. Goodling has put forward—and he has done it in a very reasonable way—is understandable. We all want support from other countries when it comes to a vote in the United Nations.
But I do not think this provision that Mr. Goodling put into the bill is going to achieve that purpose and I do not think it is going to induce greater support for the United States in the General Assembly. I do think what it is going to do is significantly damage our relationship with the second largest country in the world, India.
Last year, there were four countries that voted with us in the United Nations General Assembly less than 25 percent of the time—Cuba, Syria, North Korea. They do not get any aid from the United States anyway. The fourth country was India. I think anyone who knows India will agree that the Indians are not going to be supporting the United States more just because we have threatened to withdraw assistance from them. Indeed, just the opposite. This is just going to make the Indians mad and there is not going to be any gain. The practical effect of this is not going to be to induce any country—India specifically—to vote more frequently with us in the United Nations.
But there is another practical effect that I think is very important here. Our aid to India, which I think was about $49 million last year, is for AIDS, and for child nutrition, and for other programs that are aimed at the poorest people in that country and everybody knows how poor the poor of India are. So the practical effect of this provision is going to be to deny assistance to the poorest people in the world.
I just think Section 302 is too blunt an instrument. I fully appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the reason that he puts it forward. It angers all of us when these nations do not support us more in the United Nations. It angers me. But I really would urge you to look at the practical consequences. The practical consequences are, No. 1, you are going to get the Indians mad at us, which may not be the biggest thing but that is going to happen here. But the second thing is, you are going to cut off aid to the poorest people in India and I think that is most unfortunate.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
I do want to say that Mr. Goodling has been quite reasonable about this. He put in, I think, at my suggestion, a waiver by the Secretary of State. That certainly improves the language. But, even so, it does require the Secretary to make a determination here and a report to the Congress and I think that is not necessary.
I support the amendment by Mr. Ackerman.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I will try to be optimistic and view this debate as being helpful to our process. I am not sure it is. But I do think it is overblown in its rhetoric here. I would suggest that India and the United States are coming together much more closely and you are going to see greater congruity in our voting pattern in the United Nations because India is changing. If I thought this did substantial damage to our relationship with India, I would have more sympathy for the amendment of the gentleman from New York. I do think the more we inflate this issue, the more seriously it will be taken by the Indians.
I call my colleagues' attention specifically to the wording of the waiver. It has been referred to, but please read it. It is on page 23 on lines 20 through 25. It says that the Secretary may waive the requirement if the provision of United States assistance to that country is necessary to promote United States foreign policy objectives. That is a waiver as broad as you can imagine. I do not think it is going to be necessary for the Secretary to make that waiver because it seems to me that we are likely to have India voting with or on the same side, I will put it that way, with the United States more than 25 percent. That is the direction of things.
But I think, gentlemen and ladies of the Committee, if we are going to have support for American foreign policy, it has to be consistent with what Americans feel should be our foreign policy—what the American citizenry feels should be our policy. This Committee needs to be enunciating policy and trying to bring the American people into the view that we are representing them here on foreign policy. And, clearly, the American people would believe that the rhetoric in Section 302 is exactly what it should be.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Now, it happens to sweep at this moment into one country when we are concerned about improving our relationship. But I would ask the gentleman, stating my legislative intent, that the Secretary, if necessary, one more year, would grant the waiver because we are moving on the right track and coming together as India makes change. I would urge, if necessary—unlikely though it probably is—that the Secretary use the waiver next year as we make progress. That is likely to be the only time he would have to use it, if at all. And I would suggest that the gentleman either ought to, having made his point about the importance of Indian-American relations with which I agree, withdraw his amendment at this point, let the Goodling language stand in the bill as Section 302. Otherwise, I would urge my colleagues, knowing that the waiver is there, not to exacerbate the situation and to vote down the Ackerman——
Mr. GOODLING. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. GOODLING. The gentleman, of course, stated it far better than someone who is running from another Committee meeting where his full concern is about job training and adult literacy. But I would like to point out again, this has nothing to do with India. It passed the Committee before. It passed the House before. It has the waiver provisions there and I would be very happy to perfect the amendment, striking the developmental assistance because that was not part of my original amendment in the first place. That got added.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. BEREUTER. Would the gentleman like to make that unanimous consent request?
Mr. GOODLING. I would make the unanimous consent request that on page 25, we strike Roman numeral four, lines four through ten.
Chairman GILMAN. Is there an objection——
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. HAMILTON. Does that mean, then, that the developmental assistance could go forward?
Mr. GOODLING. That is right. And that is my original. Last Congress, that got amended.
Chairman GILMAN. Is there an objection to the——
Mr. ACKERMAN. Reserving the right to object.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is recognized under his reservation.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman is proposing is to withdraw the development assistance, the objection to the development assistance money, but he would still penalize the country—in this case India and only India—of their IMET funds, which means that those who are concerned that the army of certain countries may not be acting properly cannot be properly trained to protect their civilian populations and we are really talking about a very small amount of money for a very important cause. You are talking about just a little over a million dollars, which is a very important million dollars both symbolically and actually, and I think I have to object.
Chairman GILMAN. Is there an objection to the unanimous consent request?
Mr. Gejdenson, are you objecting?
Mr. GEJDENSON. No. I am reserving right to object. I would like to have a query over there. It seems to me the unanimous consent request is not predicated on Mr. Ackerman withdrawing his amendment so that no matter what would happen here, it would seem to me to make sense to have the gentleman go forward with his unanimous consent request. Mr. Ackerman can then press his amendment if he chooses, but we are all in agreement that we are better off if there is not an objection and we accept the gentleman's unanimous consent request.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, with that explanation, I agree wholeheartedly. I thought the gentleman was asking to withdraw the amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. Is there any further objection——
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reserving the right to object.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher, I have a reservation.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. This is absolutely absurd. We are trying to say that friends of the United States will be the recipients of our benevolence. We are taxing the American people and we are giving it to people that will not even vote with us in the United Nations? God, we are betraying our own people here. We are supposed to be supporting the interests of the American people and the moral standards of the American people and you are trying to take that out of the legislation? You should be ashamed of yourself. The bottom line is, if somebody is not a friend of the United States and votes against us, they should not expect us to tax our people and give them the money that our people work so hard to earn. Whose side are you on there?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher, if I might?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Sure.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Would you yield?
I am on our side and I think that the reason we have a United Nations is because there are different countries, all of whom have different values. If you are arguing for a one government world, that is a different story. But different nations are entitled to have different values——
Mr. ROHRABACHER. They are entitled to have their opinions——
Mr. ACKERMAN [continuing]. and that is why we have a United Nations to air those differences in a peaceful way. And by slamming different countries for different reasons, and particularly singling out India on a consistent basis, I think is a rather unseemly thing to do and to characterize somebody else as possibly unpatriotic because they agree with that is——
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher is claiming his time.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. We are basically saying either if you want to be a friend of the United States and you agree with our values of democracy, then we can help you. But I do not care if it is India. I do not care if it is South Korea. I do not care if it is Pakistan. If they are voting against us, if they are helping terrorist states, if they are conducting themselves in a way that is contrary to our interest, we should not be taxing the American people and sending their hard-earned money over to those enemies of the United States.
India has a chance to change that. They can change their voting pattern, and whatever country it is. This is not aimed at India. This is aimed at people who have decided to be enemies of the United States and I object to taking it out of this bill.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman reserves the right to object.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. Who is——
Mr. HASTINGS. I object, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object and I will not, in the final analysis, object. But what Mr. Hamilton said earlier and what Mr. Ackerman said earlier, I wish to associate myself with.
Let me state the obvious. The world is dynamic and countries are in different degrees of transition with reference to something that is important to us and that is democracy and the global economy. My colleague from California, if I could address him momentarily, to impugn the integrity of Members by saying, ''Whose side are you on?'' in the final analysis is a sort of a disingenuous argument. You know and I know we are all on the same side.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would apologize if that was the message that came across.
Mr. HASTINGS. I certainly personally need no——
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. ACKERMAN. I will accept your apology.
Mr. HASTINGS [continuing]. apology but, since I raised it, I will accept that.
And also, to talk about what we do, at one point the United Nations is important to us, yet we do not pay our dues. And I am interested in the maker of the original amendment and his position with reference to that at some point in time. And then, on the other hand, when it suits our purpose, then it is an irrelevant process.
If we were to advance democracy, then the United Nations has to demonstrate democracy and countries who oppose us in a manner should be accepted in the same way.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hastings, if I might interrupt——
Mr. HASTINGS. Sure, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN [continuing]. There is an objection that has been voiced by Mr. Rohrabacher. Do you withdraw the objection?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. No, I do not withdraw my objection. I object to this.
Chairman GILMAN. Since there is an objection, unanimous consent is withdrawn and Mr. Menendez is recognized in order of——
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
Chairman GILMAN. Yes.
Mr. HASTINGS. Are we under the 5-minute rule?
Chairman GILMAN. No. You asked for time under the reservation.
Mr. HASTINGS. So then the Chairman has the prerogative to cut me off?
Chairman GILMAN. We will recognize you in the order in which—we call Mr. Menendez.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. HASTINGS. It is going to be a long mark-up, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in support of Mr. Ackerman's amendment. This is similar to debates we have had in this Committee when our former colleague, Mr. Burton, pursued this type of effort. Let me just say that while Mr. Goodling speaks passionately about Cuba, which I am very passionate about as well, as well as North Korea and Syria and our relationships with them. The fact is that they do not receive aid and there are legislative prohibitions against them doing so. We can already unmask the reality of this provision, which is directly to attack India, the world's largest democracy. Now, do we want to put the world's largest democracy in the same category as those people who we have on our list of terrorist states Cuba, North Korea and Syria, among others?
I mean, certainly that is not good for our foreign policy and the question of how often India votes with us depends upon how you categorize it, the fact of the matter is it does not take into account that 73 percent of the time, the General Assembly works on actions by consensus. And also, our State Department considers to be important India's voting record with the United States on issues that are important to us, when you include consensus votes, they vote with us 69.9 percent of the time.
Now, our issues with Cuba, North Korea and Syria, countries that are terrorist states, versus India, which is a democracy, are far different. And India has ties with the United States in terms of U.S. businesses to the tune of one billion dollars. One billion dollars. That is of enormous interest to the United States. India has pursued market reform since 1991. Approximately 400 million people still live below the poverty line, which is why we are providing this assistance to continue to develop a market base and stability for economic reforms and movements toward democracy, developing women's education and health, environmental initiatives. These are, in essence, essential to continue to have a base for U.S. exports. Eliminating U.S. assistance to the world's largest democracy sends the wrong message to India's new government. It is important to the United States and to its businesses. And, last, I am concerned that the provisions, as provided in this Act that would, in essence, eliminate what this Committee voted for under Title 2 of the Helms-Burton legislation, which is the only carrot that we have as it relates to the people of Cuba, which is our economic support funds, which is to develop civil society within Cuba. The only assistance that we are talking about to the Cuban people. It does not go to the government of Cuba, but this language could be interpreted, in fact, to stop the economic support funds that we want to use with organizations here in the United States and abroad to develop the civil society, to develop and help the dissident and human rights movements within Cuba, and that is a secondary aspect that I think needs to be addressed. So I support Mr. Ackerman's amendment and I would ask, Mr. Chairman, if someone from the State Department would come forward and give us their position on this provision.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a red light yet and I would like someone from the State Department to come forth.
Chairman GILMAN. Please, State Department. Please identify yourself for the record.
Ms. LARKIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am Barbara Larkin, Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs.
The State Department strongly supports Mr. Ackerman's amendment to delete the provisions that are in the bill and we would agree with many of the points made by Mr. Menendez and Mr. Ackerman, particularly their pointing out that 73 percent of the votes in the United Nations are done by consensus. So a 25 percent voting record is not really indicative of support of a country for United States policies.
I would also reiterate the point that our voting records are taken into account in terms of Administration decisions on foreign assistance.
And, third, the point that India is, under our calculations, the only country that would be affected by these provisions. Finally, Mr. Menendez's point is very well taken on Cuba and we would need to check into that.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I have an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would be supportive of anything in this bill that would make sure that America's friends receive the benevolence of the American people and I would oppose any amendment that would change that. And if we have to discuss what threshold we determine who the friends of the United States are, that seems to be legitimate. But the principle itself seems to be rather absurd. However, that is my opinion and I admit that and I would like to yield the rest of my time that I have to Mr. Hastings, who I am sure the Chair did not mean any type of slight at all. I yield the rest of my time to Mr. Hastings, whatever point——
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. GOODLING. Would the gentleman yield 2 seconds to me?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. GOODLING. I would just like to point out that you can talk about consensus percentages. That means nothing whatsoever. Let's talk about percentage of votes that count. I mean, do not give me 70 percent or 25 or 80 percent on nonsense that does not count at all, the consensus votes.
And, No. 2——
Chairman GILMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLING [continuing]. it had nothing to do with India whatsoever—it applies to future votes. It sets a general standard. I would appreciate the fact that my children, when they go off in battle to defend my country, are not being shot down by military equipment that we are sending——
Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLING [continuing]. to those whom we know are——
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman has the time.
Mr. GOODLING. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would yield the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Hastings.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Goodling, if you would withhold the amendment for the moment, we will try to call on other gentlemen in order.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. I would yield the balance of my 5 minutes, or whatever I have left, to Mr. Hastings.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hastings?
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. HASTINGS. I thank my good friend——
Mr. ACKERMAN. Would the gentleman yield for 1 second?
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher has the time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Rohrabacher has the time——
Mr. ACKERMAN. Yielded off to you.
Mr. HASTINGS. Yes.
Mr. ACKERMAN. And I am asking you for 2 seconds.
Mr. HASTINGS. Yes, he yielded it to me. I apologize, Gary.
I thank my friend from California for yielding and I shall not take all of the time. I merely wish to say to my friend from Pennsylvania, the maker of the original amendment, that I do not think that the United Nations ought be the United Nations of the United States. It is constituted of a significant number of countries who have differing opinions, differing constituencies, different structures of government, and it is the place where if there is to be harmony in this world, that we likely ought to place emphasis rather than harm.
With reference to India, I wish to make it very clear that this, in my opinion, will do major harm to the advancing democracy that has been demonstrated there for 50 years. In addition, as my friend from New Jersey has said and my friend from New York, the enormous economic undertakings that are ongoing by American business persons are in that area. There is no reason for this other than as it is directed toward India and I will oppose it, the maker of the original amendment, and support the amendment that Mr. Ackerman has offered. And if I have any time, I yield back to the gentleman from California.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Lantos?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Will the gentleman yield to me?
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Lantos?
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. ACKERMAN. Will the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. LANTOS. I would be happy to yield to——
Mr. ACKERMAN. I do not think you have to, Mr. Lantos, because the light was still green when Mr.——
Mr. LANTOS. And it is still green.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Just briefly, I just want to assure my friend from Pennsylvania, also I have sons. But when your sons march off to war—and I hope they never do—I do not think they are going to be shot with developmental aid.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to go back to the original amendment and deal with it in a slightly different manner than what has gone forth thus far. I fully appreciate Mr. Goodling's intentions of trying to encourage countries to vote with the United States in the United Nations. This amendment certainly encourages that. As I understand Mr. Ackerman's amendment, instead of using an arbitrary statistical yardstick, 25 percent, he would list countries by name that should not receive aid. I think that is a more sensitive, common sense, intelligent approach.
Under the original language, a country that votes with us 25.1 percent of the time qualifies and a country that votes with us only 24.9 percent of the time does not qualify. Now, there is not a Member of the Committee who thinks that that is an intelligent way of excluding countries from participating in a United States aid program.
It is also important, I think, to recognize—and I accept Mr. Goodling's statement in good faith that his language is not aimed at India—but the unintended consequence of his language is aimed at India. India is the only country, other than the three rogue states, that is impacted by the original language and I think it is important to underscore, as some of my colleagues have indicated, this is the largest political democracy on the face of this planet. It is celebrating its fiftieth year of democracy this year. It has never been a totalitarian country during its entire existence as an independent nation and I think it would be the ultimate absurdity to slap India in the face with a language that is meaningless and counterproductive. I think Mr. Ackerman's amendment is sensible, intelligent, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Hyde.
Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman. I move to strike the last words. Is that appropriate?
Chairman GILMAN. Yes.
Mr. HYDE. OK.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman has 5 minutes.
Mr. HYDE. I just want to inject a comment into this debate. Our foreign aid ought not to be a reward for voting for us in the United Nations, nice as that is, and helpful as that is. It ought to advance our strategic interests. And it may be that a stronger India is very helpful to us as against a getting strong China. And so there may be many considerations besides fealty to our foreign policy in the U.N. I wish Egypt voted with us more in the U.N. I wish a lot of countries recognized the merit of our position. But we are attempting to dragoon them into voting for us by holding out the carrot of foreign aid. I would hope that our State Department and our deep thinkers who decide who gets what are more nuanced in allocating this money to places where it will advance our strategic interests, and this may have nothing to do with how they vote in the U.N.
So I just want to say that I support Mr. Goodling on as many things as I can. He is a very useful Member. And my friend, Mr. Rohrabacher, if this were a reward for good behavior, you are absolutely right. But foreign aid ought to be more nuanced than that. Otherwise, it would be very easy to allocate.
What serves our strategic interests and how much? I think we can cut these countries back and cut them down if we want to punish them. But I just would like a deeper understanding of the purposes of foreign aid and that should be what is of national interest.
Mr. LANTOS. Will the gentleman yield?
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. HYDE. Yes.
Mr. LANTOS. I want to commend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his most judicious comments.
Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. Thank you, Mr. Hyde.
Mr. Payne is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to certainly commend Mr. Ackerman for his amendment and I strongly support it. There is no question that this is—Mr. Goodling and I do just—I just left a committee with him and he did a very good job over there. But I strongly oppose his amendment. It has been mentioned that India is a country that is one of the shining lights of how you would go about your democracy. Britain was thrust out through passive resistance. It was a theme that has even taken hold in the United States with Dr. King adopting this passive non-violent program that Mahatma Gandhi took out. So India has a real history. The second colonial power to thrust Great Britain from its control—the first, of course, being Ireland back in the twenties.
But India has had a long history of democracy. India has worked toward trying to uplift the standard of living. In India, you have as many people who are moving into the middle class as the entire population of the United States of America. And so this country is working hard at trying to overcome their problems. I think it does not make sense for us to try to penalize them. They take refugees from Burma and Tibet. Our House of Representatives do not have total agreement. And, finally, if we look at the kind of support, the biggest project that we have had in recent years was our 28-nation intrusion protecting Kuwait. And if you looked at Kuwait's voting record at the time that the United States had the coalition to protect Kuwait, Kuwait's voting record was very poor as it related to the so-called allies of the United States. As a matter of fact, it was among the worst. And so if we are going to use a criteria of how people voted, the 28 nations would not have been there to protect Kuwait against Saddam Hussein. And so I think that the amendment certainly should be supported and I think that the original wording is out of place. Thank you.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.
Mr. GOODLING. Will the gentleman yield?
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Goodling?
Mr. GOODLING. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Goodling. In the section proposed to be stricken, page 25, strike lines four through ten.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
Mr. GOODLING. Well, as I indicated, that strikes developmental assistance from what is in the legislation. So developmental assistance can go forward. But it is important also to point out, as I have several times, that the waivers are so broad. The waivers are so broad that full control is in the hands of the President of the United States. I believe if we do not stand for something, we fall for everything and I think America should stand for something.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Point of order, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman, state your point of order.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr Chairman, I intend to be helpful. First, my point of order is that there is an amendment to the bill and that is my amendment and, therefore, an amendment to the bill, in addition to my amendment, is out of order. But if the gentleman would like to amend my amendment or if the gentleman would like to indicate that he is trying to be helpful, then I would consider this a friendly amendment or a stylistic change to the wording in my amendment.
Mr. GOODLING. I read from the legal authorities that said this is the way it has to be done. I have been advised——
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. The Chair will rule on the amendment. While a motion to strike out is pending, it is in order to offer an amendment to perfect the language proposed to be stricken, such as an amendment, which is, in the first degree, may be amended by a substitute and amendments to the substitute are also in order. In such a perfecting amendment, if agreed to when voted on, first remains part of the bill if the motion to strike is then rejected.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman? I have an amendment to the amendment.
Mr. GOODLING. I have a point of order.
Chairman GILMAN. The motion to strike is now before the Committee.
Mr. GOODLING. I have a point of order. Parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman GILMAN. Would you hold just a moment?
The Goodling motion to strike is not amendable.
Mr. Goodling?
Mr. GOODLING. Point of order——
Mr. ACKERMAN. I offer the amendment request——
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Goodling has the time.
What is the gentleman's objection?
Mr. LANTOS. There was a unanimous consent to amend that and I object then.
Chairman GILMAN. There was no unanimous consent request on the Goodling motion, as I recall.
Mr. Goodling?
Mr. GOODLING. I offer the amendment——
Mr. ACKERMAN. Point of inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GOODLING [continuing]. and request a vote.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I might. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Goodling has made a motion to vote——
Mr. ACKERMAN. Parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman is recognized on the amendment.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, Mr. Goodling is attempting to perfect the original language within the proposal before the consideration of my amendment and he is perfecting the print offered by the Committee which would take out some of the things that we find onerous and objectionable and therefore I do not have any objection to Mr. Goodling's perfecting amendment and then the order, as I understand it, would be to take up my amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. Since there is no objection on the Goodling amendment, the question is now on the Goodling perfecting amendment. All in favor, signify in the usual manner.
(Chorus of ayes.)
Chairman GILMAN. Opposed?
And the Goodling amendment is agreed to.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. Now, there is before us the Ackerman amendment, as amended.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman——
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Ackerman on the amendment.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes, 1 second, Mr. Chairman.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is my amendment that is before us now?
Chairman GILMAN. That is correct, as amended.
Mr. ACKERMAN. As amended.
Mr. Chairman, what Mr. Goodling has done, with our blessing, is to remove the development aid threat against India but still leaves in there the IMET. As I understand it—and if I am mistaken, perhaps somebody could correct me and the Administration still is here—that the entire amount of IMET received by the people of India, which I think numbers close to one billion people, is $400,000. I do not know. Somebody can do the math. It is about 25 cents an Indian.
I do not think that that is going to change anybody's vote in the United Nations. I think that IMET money is of extreme importance not just for the symbolism of it but for those who might profess to argue that there are governments whose armies need training because of whatever the reasons you might want to offer and I tell you that that is why we do have IMET, to help train those forces. It is not military money but teaches armies about how to deal with civilian populations and other kinds of problems so that they do not overreact.
Again, Mr. Chairman, 69——
Mr. HAMILTON. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes, certainly.
Mr. HAMILTON. I just want to emphasize the point that the gentleman is making and I think it is a good point. The effect now of the Goodling amendment, the only effect, is to knock out IMET training for India. That means we are cutting whatever modest relationship we now have with the Indian military. That just does not make any sense, frankly, to do that——
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. ACKERMAN. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. HAMILTON [continuing]. it seems to me with a country of the importance of India.
Mr. ACKERMAN. I thank the gentleman for highlighting the point that I was trying to make.
Would the Chairman yield me another minute, Mr. Chairman, if I yield to your side?
Chairman GILMAN. You are on 5 minutes.
Mr. ACKERMAN. In that case, you will offer them time, I am sure.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman, if you could be brief. We have——
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, you keep interrupting my time and——
Chairman GILMAN. That is the first interruption I have made, Mr. Ackerman, and I want to once again remind the Committee that we have 40-some amendments left to be considered——
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, is your reminder coming out of my time?
Chairman GILMAN. Go ahead, Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you.
Mr. Hamilton is absolutely right. What this does is it takes the $400,000—and that is a mere pittance—away from the largest democracy in the world in an attempt to persuade them to vote with us more frequently. If you think about it, they vote with us, every country does, by consensus, 69 percent of the time by giving unanimous consent in the U.N. and then you add 23 percent on top of that and you get 94 percent of the time India agrees with us in the United Nations, which means 6 percent of the time they do not. They are doing better with us than I am doing with my wife, Mr. Chairman. I do not think that that is a very unreasonable thing to expect that somebody is going to disagree with you 6 percent of the time.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
I think that this would be a horrible signal to send to India. This is directed only to India at this point. No other country is affected and the only thing that is affected here is a very, very sharp edge to cut IMET funding to India.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I do not know if I am misreading this thing or not, but it says that United States assistance may not be provided to a country that consistently opposes the United States' position. Does India consistently oppose? I do not see where we are naming India. I do not know. To my way of thinking, that is a wide-open statement that could be interpreted in almost any way anybody wants to and I cannot understand why somebody says we are aiming at India.
I yield back.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ballenger.
Mr. GOODLING. Would the gentleman yield?
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Sherman is recognized.
Mr. GOODLING. The gentleman has yielded to me. He is correct. It says consistently votes against the United States. It also deals with next year's appropriation, not this year's. They can change their votes dramatically.
But more important than any of that, last year when I offered this, I think it was Mr. Hamilton who pretty much neutered my amendment by indicating that here are several broad exceptions. Here are waivers that are big enough to drive a truck through. And those waivers are there. All I am saying is, we should set some kind of standard as far as the United States is concerned for all of the countries in the world. It is our taxpayers' money that we are talking about. So I do not think I am asking for anything unreasonable and particularly I am not talking about India. I have not mentioned India. I had no idea that India was involved in any way, shape or form when I offered the amendment a year or 2 years ago, whenever it was. So I would hope that we can get support for this amendment amending what Mr. Ackerman has done.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. BALLENGER. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, before I start, I——
Chairman GILMAN. Well, Mr. Sherman, if you will hold——
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Bereuter asked me for time.
Mr. BEREUTER. Well, I would just say to my colleagues, remind them that the waiver is still there for IMET. So if, in fact, it would be necessary, the unlikely condition that we would have the 25 percent rule prevail for next year under next year's appropriation, the waiver could also be used for IMET. We are not necessarily severing and do not want to sever the military-to-military training in relationship with India.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Sherman?
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I am a freshman. I am a bit confused in that it is my understanding that Mr. Goodling's amendment was to Mr. Ackerman's amendment and yet we all seem to be construing it as an amendment to the bill itself. I just want to be assured that if Mr. Ackerman's amendment passes——
Chairman GILMAN. If the gentleman yield, it was an amendment to the bill itself, an amendment to perfect the language.
Mr. SHERMAN. To perfect the language.
That being the case, I would like to speak in favor of Mr. Ackerman's amendment and associate myself with Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Lantos and Mr. Hyde's comments. Mr. Hyde correctly points out that values is one, and only one, of the issues to look at in allocating aid. We have to look at which countries and which peoples are neediest. And, as Mr. Hyde points out, we need to look at our own strategic interest.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
But I do think that values are important. And this is why I think that it is necessary for us to pass the Ackerman amendment. Because, as Mr. Goodling points out, we cannot evaluate whether a country's values are consistent with ours by some bizarre numerical test. We, in Congress, have seen how misleading it would be, how misleading it is, to say, ''Mr. Sherman votes with Mr. Gingrich 40 percent of the time because he agrees with Mr. Gingrich on whether to approve the journal.'' The United Nations is no different. Seventy percent of the votes are by consensus. Are we supposed to determine whether India's values are consistent with ours by noticing that India is the world's largest democracy? Or are we supposed to numerically count up how India votes on a variety of roll call votes of the United Nations, some of which are unimportant? Would India's values be closer to ours if the 60 percent or 70 percent of the votes at the United Nations that are done by consensus somebody stood up and demanded a roll call vote so we could record the fact that India agrees with us on motherhood and apple pie every day the United Nations is in session?
The best way to determine whether India's values warrant our support is to look at the policies of India, look at the values of India. And that is what we should do either by deferring to the Administration, which has told us that they take India's votes in the United Nations into account, not by looking at some silly numerical counting but by looking at their important votes or we, as a Committee, could earmark or restrict aid to India, looking at everything, not by just looking at some numerical test.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, gentleman.
Mr. Kim.
Mr. KIM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am surprised to find out today that India—I would like to talk about India—has been consistently voting against us in the U.N. General Assembly. I am very upset about that. If I asked people in my district, ''How would you have voted? Would you like to continue this foreign aid program to India in spite of the fact that they have been voting against us three out of four times?'' I can picture that 90 percent will say, ''Heck, no.''
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
I think it is important to develop the issue, what are we trying to do, buy a relationship? Whatever little relationship we have, we may lose it if we discontinue this foreign aid? What are we trying to do? Are we going to buy the relationship? Money is everything? We should stand tall on this issue. Tell them no. But if they vote with us, I do not see anything wrong with that 25 percent. It is very reasonable. I do not care. I can explain it to people, especially including technical votes or procedural votes that do not make a difference. I oppose this amendment and support the concept to stop this foreign aid to those countries who are voting against us consistently.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Kim.
The vote is now on the original Ackerman amendment. If the Members want the language in the bill as amended by the Goodling amendment, they should vote against—and I repeat, against—the Ackerman amendment. If the Members simply want to strike the entire provision in the bill, they should vote for the Ackerman amendment.
The vote now is on the Ackerman amendment. All in favor of the Ackerman amendment——
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, could you please repeat those instructions?
Chairman GILMAN. If Members want the language in the bill as amended by the Goodling amendment, they should vote against—I repeat, against—the Ackerman amendment. If the Members simply want to strike the entire provision in the bill, they should then vote for the Ackerman amendment.
The vote now is on the Ackerman amendment. All in favor, signify in the usual manner.
(Chorus of ayes.)
Chairman GILMAN. Those opposed?
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
(Chorus of noes.)
Chairman GILMAN. The ayes apparently have it.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Goodling.
Mr. GOODLING. On that I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman GILMAN. Is there a sufficient second?
A recorded vote has been requested. The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman?
Chairman GILMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes no.
Mr. Goodling?
Mr. GOODLING. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling votes no.
Mr. Leach?
Mr. Hyde?
Mr. HYDE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde votes no.
Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes no.
Mr Smith.
Mr. SMITH. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Burton?
Mr. Gallegly?
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. GALLEGLY. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
Mr. Ballenger?
Mr. BALLENGER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Manzullo?
Mr. Royce?
Mr. King?
Mr. KING. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King votes no.
Mr. Kim?
Mr. KIM. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim votes no.
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. CHABOT. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Sanford?
Mr. Salmon?
Mr. Houghton?
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes yes.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. Campbell?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell votes yes.
Mr. Fox?
Mr. McHugh?
Mr. Graham?
Mr. GRAHAM. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham votes no.
Mr. Blunt?
Mr. BLUNT. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blunt votes no.
Mr. Moran?
Mr. Brady?
Mr. BRADY. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady votes no.
Mr. Hamilton?
Mr. HAMILTON. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hamilton votes yes.
Mr. Gejdenson?
Mr. GEJDENSON. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson votes yes.
Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos votes yes.
Mr. Berman?
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Martinez?
Mr. Payne?
Mr. PAYNE. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes yes.
Mr. Andrews?
Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Andrews votes yes.
Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes yes.
Mr. Brown?
Ms. McKinney?
Ms. MCKINNEY. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney votes yes.
Mr. Hastings?
Mr. HASTINGS. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings votes yes.
Ms. Danner?
Ms. DANNER. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner votes yes.
Mr. Hilliard?
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. HILLIARD. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes yes.
Mr. Capps?
Mr. CAPPS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Capps votes yes.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes yes.
Mr. Wexler?
Mr. WEXLER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler votes yes.
Mr. Rothman?
Mr. Clement?
Mr. CLEMENT. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Clement votes yes.
Mr. Luther?
Mr. LUTHER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Luther votes yes.
Mr. Davis?
Mr. DAVIS. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes yes.
Chairman GILMAN. The Clerk will report the vote. The Clerk will call the absentees.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach, Mr. Burton, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Royce, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Salmon, Mr. Fox, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Moran, Mr. Berman, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Brown, Mr. Rothman.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
You are not recorded.
Mr. Sanford votes no.
Chairman GILMAN. The Clerk will report the vote.
Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote, there were 19 ayes and 15 noes.
Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is agreed to.
Now, are there any further amendments to Title III?
If not, the clerk will go to Title IV.
Ms. BLOOMER. Title IV, Defense and Security Assistance.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton?
Mr. HAMILTON. I have an amendment in Title IV. It is on the drug certification provision, Section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act.
Chairman GILMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Hamilton. At the appropriate place, insert the following: Section——
Chairman GILMAN. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The gentleman from Indiana, our ranking minority Member, Mr. Hamilton, is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
What this amendment does is to replace the current provision in the law which requires the President to make a certification with respect to the counternarcotics activities in another country. I do not think anyone here was very satisfied with the debate that we had with respect to Mexico. The amendment offered is to Chapter 1 of Title IV. I think Congressman Menendez, Congressman Hastings join me in offering this amendment to change the current drug certification process.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
What we do here is to knock out the certification process. We try to keep the useful purposes of the statute. Specifically we require the President to consider withholding U.S. assistance from major drug-producing, drug-transiting and money laundering countries in order to meet U.S. counternarcotic objectives and we mandate continuous and comprehensive reporting of progress being made in the international fight against drugs. We eliminate the mandatory sanctions and the annual grading system which I think has offended our friends and undercuts their cooperation.
I would make just a few points about this. The Speaker of the House the other day is quoted in the Miami Herald as saying that certification in its current form by the United States just does not make sense and he would like to see us rethink the entire process. I think the Speaker is exactly right about that. This amendment is put forward not with any claim of perfection but as an effort to begin to rethink the process of the drug certification provisions.
Let me make several points about it very quickly. No. 1, I do not think current law accomplishes the objective that everybody here shares and that is to curb the flow of drugs into the United States. This certification/decertification process simply has not worked.
Second, the current law puts the President of the United States, I think, in an untenable position as he was in the Mexican case. It requires him to make a judgment about a country based on a single issue, drugs, and not to consider the impact of decertification on the overall relationship. It has encouraged every president to certify friend and ally to avoid sanctions even when he knows the cooperation has been less than full. And I think it undermines the very counternarcotics effort that we want to encourage. This law today forces the President to make a decision without providing him with the kinds of options that a president needs in conducting American foreign policy. The law is simply too blunt. It is too narrow. You get into some extraordinary results.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
For example, we have decertified Colombia. Then we turn around under other provisions of the law and waive all of the sanctions so we decertify without really penalizing Colombia. On the other hand, we certify Mexico and we all remember the difficulty of certification of Mexico. And I think there are many policy reasons for perhaps the distinction between Colombia and Mexico. But the statute that we now have on the books simply does not allow for such considerations.
I also ought to say that the present statute, I think, is badly out-of-date. Countries that, for example, do not adequately control money laundering are not subject to the certification process, even though everybody knows there is a very clear link between money laundering and drug trafficking. So let me emphasize here that we are trying to rethink the certification statute. I do not pretend that this amendment is perfect. I am perfectly willing to work with others to improve it. But I do think this certification process——
Mr. Chairman, may I have an additional 3 minutes?
Chairman GILMAN. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman additional time.
Mr. HAMILTON. I think this amendment is a start, at least, in rethinking the whole matter and I would like to yield, if I may, to Mr. Menendez or to Mr. Hastings.
Mr. Menendez first and then Mr. Hastings.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Menendez is recognized for——
Mr. HAMILTON. I have yielded. I only have 3 minutes left, so——
Mr. MENENDEZ. I will be happy to let it go.
Mr. HAMILTON. OK.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I will seek my own time.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. HAMILTON. OK. Mr. Hastings?
Mr. HASTINGS. I thank the ranking Member for yielding and I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to express my support for this amendment and my hope that all Members of this Committee will support it also. As the ranking Member has said, the Speaker of the House feels that we should rethink this entire process and I think that this bill does precisely that.
Mr. Hamilton's amendment requires the President to consider withholding U.S. assistance from drug-producing, transiting and money laundering countries. It mandates reporting on the progress being made in the fight against drugs and eliminates the mandatory sanctions and the annual grading system which does tend to create problems with friends and allies. Although I could be convinced to go even farther than this amendment, I do believe that the ranking Member's language is an excellent first step toward improving the process.
One final note, in Nigeria, as an example, Nigeria is on the list of countries that are decertified because of the fact that drugs are trans-shipped from there and there is no doubt about that. But the countries where the drugs come to Nigeria from are not on the decertification list. This is a hodge-podge and, in the final analysis, it is hypocritical of us. I support and ask my colleagues to please support the Hamilton amendment.
Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. I am now going to declare a recess for lunch until one-thirty. I will ask the Members to promptly return at one-thirty.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. Yes.
Let me remind our Members that we have a limited number of bills available. Please note your name on the bill, leave them in place. We will not have further bills for distribution.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Gejdenson?
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Berman asked me to ask unanimous consent that he have a right of amendment reserved in Title IV. He is at a meeting on the ethics conference that he is——
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Berman's right to make that amendment is reserved.
[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the Committee recessed, to reconvene at 1:41 p.m., the same day.]
Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order.
The Committee is now considering Title IV. The amendment before us is Mr. Hamilton's amendment on eliminating drug certification. I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton.
Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hamilton has not yet arrived? Please convey to him my best regards and whatever I happen to say.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Burton.
Mr. BURTON. I would like to quote Ambassador Gelbard, which was in a ''Dear Colleague'' sent out by the chairman of the Committee, Mr. Gilman. Quote, ''Since its inception in the mid–1980's, the President's annual certification process has emerged as one of the most powerful tools in the conduct of our foreign drug control initiative.'' Now, this is a gentleman who is charged with the responsibility of dealing with Mexico and Latin America and he deals with it on a regular basis and he said it is the most powerful tool in the conduct of foreign drug control initiatives.
I know that a lot of people say we ought to review the process. I think even the Speaker of the House has said we ought to review the process. But I do not think anybody in a position of leadership has said we ought to eliminate the certification process. To eliminate the certification process at a time when drugs are flooding across the Mexican-American border just seems to me to be irresponsible. And we need to keep the pressure on the Mexican government to cooperate and work with us in dealing with this problem. It is affecting every inner city school kid, every suburban school child. It is affecting every part of our society, the drug problem. And to decertify or eliminate the certification process completely right now just makes no sense.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Let me read to you a couple of the talking points that I have before me—and I do not like to read. I would rather speak straight from the heart. But, nevertheless, I think these things need to be said.
Just recently, two U.S. Customs officers were shot along the border on a drug-related matter. The problem is not the certification statute. It is the performance—the performance in Mexico City. Granted, I think the president of Mexico wants to do something about this. But the problem is still prevalent and the corruption level goes almost all the way to the top. And, because of that, we have to keep the pressure on Mexico and that is why the certification process is so important.
Drugs cost American society—I hope everybody listens to this—$67,000 million a year, $67 billion a year. We have the right to demand and get cooperation from countries that want our assistance and access to our markets. We passed NAFTA and NAFTA has really helped the economy of Mexico. They now have about a $20 billion trade surplus, much to the chagrin of many Americans. A lot of jobs have gone south. In exchange for that, what are we getting? More drugs. We need to keep the pressure on them and that certification process is one of the tools we have to have. Without certification, the State Department and regional bureaus would bury the drug issue and we cannot bury the drug issue because the drug issue is burying our kids. The drug issue is burying our kids, so we cannot let this be buried by the agencies of our government.
And, finally, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If there are problems with the certification process, let's fix them and not eliminate certification altogether.
And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I just would like to say I feel so strongly about this. I have had a personal involvement in my own family with a drug problem. I think some of the Members know that. And once you have that, you realize how pervasive the problem is. I heard young people in my boys' high school talking about the drug issue and I went down to the high school and I said to the principal of the high school, ''I would like to have the sheriff come through here with sniffer dogs to sniff out the drugs that might be in the lockers.'' He said, ''You have to go to the superintendent of schools.''
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
I went to the superintendent of schools and he said, ''We do not have a drug problem.'' We do not have a drug problem. It was a suburban, high-class high school. The inner-city schools face this, too. The drug problem is so pervasive. And to take away one of the tools that we have makes no sense.
I have the highest regard for Mr. Hamilton. He is a fine man. I am going to miss him when he leaves the Congress. But I think that this amendment is heading us in the wrong direction and I hope my colleagues will see fit to defeat it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Burton.
Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, just a procedural question. How are we proceeding since there is a vote pending before the House? This is an important debate and I would invite both of our colleagues to hear it and not to be missing the possibility of the vote to be cast here.
Chairman GILMAN. Would anyone else like to take the floor at this time? Is there anyone else seeking the opportunity to speak?
Mr. MENENDEZ. I am questioning, Mr. Chairman, how we are proceeding.
Chairman GILMAN. Yes. We are going to continue right through, if you would like to——
Thank you, Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman Hamilton and Mr. Hastings, having worked with them both on behalf of this effort which I would add has the unanimous support of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus who voted to support the effort by Mr. Hamilton and which I also believe, in spirit, has the support of the Speaker of the House when he made a speech before a large audience that deals with Latin America. And my good friend Mr. Burton talks about some dramatic events and those dramatic events happened notwithstanding that the certification process is in place and they have happened many times, notwithstanding that the certification process is in place.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
And, despite Mr. Gelbard's discussion that this is a powerful tool, that powerful tool has not changed anything in the context of moving us closer to the type of goal that we want, which is the interdiction and reduction of drugs. But we also need to reduce the demand for drugs in the United States.
What we are doing through this process is not eliminating, in essence, the process of reporting. We still have reporting and we still have sanctions if we are unsatisfied with what, in fact, that country is doing that we are supporting. What we do eliminate, however, is the problems that we are having with our neighbors to the south in the context of sovereignty issues. This is creating enormous problems for us in every other sphere—in trade, in opportunities to promote integration within the hemisphere, because we are impugning the sovereignty of these countries and that is the way they look at the certification process even when they do not get decertified.
So, it seems to me that we must seek cooperation to combat this mutual problem, bilateral initiatives are extremely important. Our certification process has impaired our ability to work effectively with those countries and the fact that the Chairman is going to be offering, the Chairman of the full Committee, is going to be offering two amendments to override the decertification of Colombia and provide them with foreign military assistance and international military and education funds, which I also support, speaks to the many problems with the current statute. He would not have to do that if, in fact, the current statute was changed.
So what Mr. Hamilton seeks to do is obtain the bilateral cooperation, still give the power for sanctions, eliminate the sovereignty questions that always arise, seek cooperation, and maintain our ability to deny funds to individuals who are, in fact, the countries that do not cooperate. That is, in essence, a smarter policy.
I share Mr. Burton's goals, but I think that we are achieving it in an improper fashion, in a fashion that, in fact, does not have us reach our goals mutually and that creates for us within the hemisphere even greater problems. I ask my colleagues, who are not here, to support the bill and I hope we will allow another Member time when they all return.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BEREUTER (PRESIDING). I think, because we are under the 10-minute timeframe, that we probably ought to go vote and come back. So, the Chair will suspend until the vote. So, please come back as soon as you can.
The Chair will stand in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman GILMAN (PRESIDING). The Committee will come to order.
I have a technical request. I ask unanimous consent that amendments drafted to the Committee be deemed to be amendments to the corresponding pages and lines of the bill in H.R. 1486. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Fox?
Mr. FOX. Mr. Chairman, in this current motion, I believe it is important that we maintain the annual Presidential drug certification for major drug-producing or transit nations. The fact is that it has been pointed out previously, I think by Congressman Burton, that the dangers of——
Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentleman withhold a moment?
The Committee will come to order. Will Members please take their seats? Mr. Fox has the floor.
Mr. Fox?
Mr. FOX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With regard to the amendment before us, I believe it is important that the membership look to continuing the Presidential Drug Certification Program we have here in Congress to reduce the flow of illegal and illicit drugs to our country. Illicit drugs play a major role here at home and every day there are 16,000 drug-related deaths, 500,000 drug-related injuries, 12,000,000 drug-related property crimes. A third of the new AIDS cases in the U.S. are drug-related. Fifty percent or more of our crime is drug-related. And it is even higher for violent crime. Nearly 60 percent of Federal prisoners are drug offenders. An estimated 10 percent of Federal prisoners and 17 percent of state prisoners reported committing offenses in order to pay for drugs. So I believe, Mr. Chairman, the American people want and expect us to have those nations who ask for U.S. assistance to also assist us in stopping the illicit drug trade. And so I would underscore the remarks given by Congressman Burton just previously prior to our House floor vote as the reasons why we should defer from this amendment and, rather, continue the Presidential Drug Certification Program as it is in place today.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
I thank the Chairman and yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Fox.
Mr. Rothman?
Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to yield my time to Mr. Menendez, if I may.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Menendez has yielded time from Mr. Rothman.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I want to thank my distinguished colleague from New Jersey for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, I sought the time because I was speaking to an empty Committee, notwithstanding those Members who are here, with all due respect, I mean, but basically to an empty Committee and I think this is an important issue. As someone who has followed Latin America for many years and certainly for the last five as a Member of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, I think that this amendment Mr. Hamilton offers is extremely important and needs the opportunity for the debate to take place.
I respect my colleagues who feel very passionately, as I do, about narcotics flowing into our country. But what I want to do is accomplish our goals and I do not think that we are doing it through the drug certification process that we have. Show me how we have accomplished a difference in the process. It does not seem to me that we have. This amendment, I want to reiterate, has the support of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus who voted unanimously to support Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Hastings' initiative.
I think the Speaker the other day had it right. He said that the way we are proceeding is not in our best interests and for those who think that supporting this amendment is being soft, what we are doing is being smart. We are actually proceeding in a way that still can deny funds to countries that are not pursuing the interests that we have. We can still deny those funds, through a series of sanctions by the President, and we are still going to have reporting. What we are not going to do is have this enormous tension with countries, especially with our history in Latin America, that in fact always has the United States telling our neighbors to the south what to do. And it is that tension that does not foster cooperation but fosters confrontation. And what we seek is cooperation in a bilateral way with these countries in order to ensure our mutual goals.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Now, if you understand the people from the southern part of our hemisphere, you understand some of that history then and you also understand that it creates incredibly difficult propositions for leaders of those countries to create the type of movements that we want to see as we have seen, for example, President Zedillo use. Now, what we need to do is empower those individuals, those leaders, who show us that, in fact, they are willing to cooperate with us, not undermine them. That is what I think is what Speaker Gingrich was referring to. That is what we are trying to do in this amendment.
So, I would hope that, in fact, the mere fact that the Chairman of the full Committee—I want to reiterate this—has amendments to override the decertification of Colombia and provide them with foreign military assistance and international military and education funds to accomplish our mutual goal of drug interdiction so that we do not have these coming into the streets and schools of our city speaks volumes to the problems that we have with the current law. And I think that his message, by virtue of that amendment, is this process does not work. Let's change it, have a process that can deny funds, create sanctions, give us reporting, but also remove the friction that does not create cooperation but that creates confrontation and I thank my colleague from New Jersey for yielding time.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Menendez.
Mr. Rothman, did——
Mr. ROTHMAN. Yield the balance of my time.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rothman yields the balance of his time.
Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Burton asked me to yield him some time and I will. Then I would like to reclaim the balance.
Mr. BURTON. Real briefly, Mr. Chairman, some argue that certification has not produced results. Now, just this morning, Admiral Kranik, the Coast Guard and interdiction coordinator, told Members that without certification the Coast Guard would never have gotten a recent historic right to refuel on maritime assets in Mexican ports, just this morning. He said without the certification process, they would not be able to refuel our maritime fleet in the Mexican ports because that fuel is employed and put pressure on the Mexican government. Now, that is just one of the issues that we ought to be thinking about before we pass this amendment.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter has the balance of his time.
Mr. BEREUTER. I want to speak in favor of the Hamilton amendment. Republicans should not feel they need to defend this language in the statute. It traces back to 1986 to a Democratic Congress. It is now proven to be a bad idea. It is unworkable. Everybody knew that, in fact, Mexico did not meet the standards for certification earlier this year. But the President, for other reasons, and many of us find those reasons compelling, felt that he had to basically ignore the law, fudge the facts and say they are certified.
They were not certifiable under this legislation. It ought to be eliminated. We ought to have more realistic standards—things that make sense. We ought to say at the same time that Mexico is, from top to bottom, corrupt and there ought to be something done about it. We do not need to hedge our words on those kinds of issues. It is a serious problem. But this certification language has not worked well. It makes liars out of us all and it is time to replace it with a better policy. So I urge support for the Hamilton amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
And Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, before addressing the Hamilton amendment, I want to pay public tribute to you for your leadership in our semi-annual meeting with the European parliament on this issue. For a decade and a half, you have been a strong voice to fight drugs and many of the European countries have enacted legislation as a result of your efforts.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, what current law demands of the President is to certify the uncertifiable, which I do not think is good politics. I want to commend my friends, Congressmen Hamilton, Hastings and Menendez, for introducing this very significant amendment and I want to call the attention of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle—the Speaker of the House, not specifically endorsing the Hamilton amendment, said this on Monday in connection with the hemispheric meeting. I am quoting from the Miami Herald.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
''House Speaker Newt Gingrich endorsed calls to revise the U.S. certification process of drug war allies, a congressionally mandated review that has antagonized many nations in the hemisphere. In remarks to the council of the freely elected heads of government at the Carter Center here, Gingrich said Congress should pursue a more subtle, multilateral approach to judging the performance of other nations anti-narcotics efforts. 'I think certification in its current form by the United States just doesn't make sense,' said Gingrich, who noted that it angers what he calls the legitimate sensitive patriot. Gingrich said the United States is in no position to pass judgment on others when we can't police ourselves.''
I agree with the Speaker. I think the fundamental issue in the drug war is here in the United States.
It is irrelevant what will happen abroad, because there will be no market for drugs. I think the Hamilton-Hastings-Menendez approach is a sensitive, common sense approach to a very complex problem. We are not divided on this Committee by the intensity of our opposition to drugs. We share the same level of intensity, and I think my friend from Nebraska stated the issue very accurately. This policy does not work. A more nuanced, a more sensitive approach is called for. That is what the Hamilton amendment offers, and I call on all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. Is there anyone else seeking recognition on this issue?
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ballenger?
Mr. BALLENGER. If I may, Mr. Chairman, it appears the first amendment we had, we changed, we passed because we were afraid we might offend the country of India. In this particular case, we want to change something because we might offend somebody else. This may be the way the State Department runs and maybe that is the reason we have not been too terribly successful in the efforts in the drug trading, but it appears to me that if we are going to give away every weapon we have that helps us enforce some kind of restrictions on the drug trade throughout the world, because we might offend somebody, then I just do not know what we are doing, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. LANTOS. I want to answer this.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ballenger. Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. I would like to be recognized on my own time.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Lantos is recognized.
Mr. LANTOS. I want to answer my colleague who has just spoken about giving up weapons. This weapon is like the guns of Singapore in the Second World War, that were aimed at the water and the enemy came from behind over land. We are not giving up any weapons. Through the Hamilton amendment, we are moving to more effective, more productive weapons that will achieve our purposes more intelligently. I thank the chair.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. Is there anyone else seeking recognition on this issue? Mr. Brady?
Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is important in this debate on certification that we distinguish between imperfect and ineffective. Clearly, we know that there are parts of the certification process that we might make better, that we might make more perfect, but this is not an improvement, and will prove ineffective for our country.
In Texas, we deal directly with the impact of the drugs that are streaming across our borders. Both the United States and Mexico have a big stake in solving this problem, but in the war on drugs, the international war on drugs, this amendment, in effect, is a wet noodle. It will not bring about the change we desire, and it will prove to be ineffective if ever applied.
I would respectfully urge that we defeat this amendment, and I yield the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Are there any further requests for time? If not, I would like to add some comments to this measure.
I would welcome the opportunity to review and reform the current law dealing with the annual Presidential certification of a major drug producing or transient nations in their level of cooperation with U.S. counter-narcotics goal. But, I say that this is neither the time nor the place.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Speaker Gingrich, and I was present when he made his remarks at the Atlanta conference on Western Hemisphere, suggested that we consider an independent analysis, an alliance of nations that would review where we stand on certification, and have that group, that commission, so to speak, evaluate the process and make a recommendation to the Congress, and then the Congress should act, after having that independent analysis. But, he was not throwing the baby out with the bath water. He still wanted to maintain the certification process, but allow it to have less of a blunt effect, by having an independent analysis of just where these countries stood on how effectively they were performing.
Our leadership has charged our Committee with holding hearings and evaluating current law, and we do plan to have hearings and our staff has already met with CRS on possible witnesses on this issue. Our staff is also reviewing a recent State Department IG study issued in December 1996 on the whole drug certification process.
I might note that in the very same IG study, the Clinton Administration's Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics said in the certification process, which Mr. Hamilton now wants to totally scrap, and I quote, ''Since its inception—'' May we have your attention, please? The Committee will come to order. ''Since its inception in the mid 1980's—'' this is the Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics speaking—'' . . . the President's annual certification process has emerged as one of the most powerful tools in the conduct of our foreign drug control initiative.'' Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics in a recent report by the IG.
In the interim, while we review the certification process, I urge our Members, let us not get rid of the process, let us not throw out the baby with the bath water, especially because some nations like Mexico do not like to be challenged on our serious concerns about drugs in our bilateral relationship.
At the Atlanta conference just the beginning of this week, the President of Bolivia told the delegates that the certification process in which we decertified Bolivia just a year or two ago, gave him the authority to build support for eradication of the coca production and help him make some hard choices, as much as he was embarrassed by it, but it did help him comply with what we were trying to do.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
My colleague, Mr. Hamilton, makes clear that his purpose is to remove these provisions, and I quote, ''require annual certification and mandatory sanctions''. He would like to remove those provisions. This is not the message that we should be sending to Mexico and to other drug producing nations and transient nations.
Many ask, where does the United States get the right to measure another nation's level of resolve against drugs? Let me respond to those critics and answer in stark terms. Illicit drugs are reaching our shores from abroad each and every year, and it resulted in 16,000 drug related deaths in our nation, 500,000 drug related injuries, 12 million drug related property crimes. One third of the new AIDS cases in the United States are drug related. Fifty percent or more of our crime is drug related, and it is even higher for violent crime. Nearly 60 percent of our Federal prisoners are drug offenders.
Overall, the annual societal cost from illicit drugs, according to Vice President Gore, is $67 billion each and every year. Those are costs in crime, incarceration, health care, lost worker productivity, among just a few that have been inflicted by illicit drugs from abroad. Our people expect those nations who would ask for our assistance for loan guarantees and for access to our consumer markets to cooperate with us in this struggle against the illicit drugs from abroad. I do not think that is too much to ask.
How can we tell our American people that we have no right to demand or to require cooperation from those nations that are fighting drugs? It is not much for those nations around the globe who want this foreign assistance and access to our markets. If we do, we will all be back here again looking for a way to force other nations to take our concerns about illicit drugs seriously.
You may recall when we passed this measure just a few years ago that we were frustrated by not having the ability to convince the drug producing nations to comply with what we were seeking, and that is to have drug free nations. That is why this measure was adopted.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
What we need now, my colleagues, is a full hearing on the drug certification process. Let us bring in some experts. Let us find out if there is a better way. But, we should be very cautious about eliminating this leverage that we have on the drug producing nations.
I would like to ask our State Department witness who is here, Ms. Larkin, if you could address a question we have? Is it the State Department's view that this is a time to terminate the use of this effective tool before we undertake a full analysis? What is the view of the International Narcotics Bureau?
Ms. LARKIN. Mr. Chairman, the view of the Administration is that it is appropriate to review these procedures for their effectiveness. We have not had time to look at Mr. Hamilton's amendment carefully to analyze all the provisions and sort out the different equities that are involved. But, we believe that looking at this process closely, or taking a second look at it and possibly granting the President more flexibility, is useful. We look forward to working with this Committee and other Members of Congress throughout this process on the legislation.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms. Larkin. I would assume, then, you are saying do not eliminate the process until we have had an opportunity to further study it, is that correct, and to undertake such a study?
Ms. LARKIN. Yes, we are saying we would like to look at this closely with Members of Congress.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.
Mr. Chabo.?
Mr. CHABOT. I think the Chairman already asked the question I was going to ask, and I thank the chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. Hamilton?
Mr. HAMILTON. Are we closing the debate now, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. We are getting ready to close the debate.
Mr. HAMILTON. Let me say first of all that I appreciate very much the indication by the chairman that he is willing to hold hearings on the decertification statute. I think that is a step in the right direction and I commend him for that.
I want to be very clear here that all of us agree on the point of trying to stop drugs coming into this country. This is not a debate today about those who are for drugs and those who are against them. We are all against drugs and we are all struggling with the question of how best do you stop the drugs from coming into this country.
Now, the chairman made a very interesting statement a moment ago, when he said that we must try, through the certification process, to require cooperation. You do not mandate cooperation. You do not require cooperation. Cooperation has to come from Mexico or Colombia as those nations act in their own best interest.
The real question here is how do you get cooperation from Mexico and Colombia and other countries in fighting drugs and getting them to do what we all want them to do? Do you do it with this annual certification/decertification process or do you not? I think the evidence is very clear that the current law simply does not work. What happens is that when you go through the debate on whether Mexico cooperates or does not cooperate, you end up antagonizing the Mexicans. When you antagonize the Mexicans, you decrease the likelihood of cooperation. Likewise, when you go through the process of certifying or decertifying Colombia, and in that case we decertified, you get the Colombians, when we did decertify, very angry at us because we are trying to make an international example of them, and you decrease the likelihood of cooperation.
So, I begin here with the premise that this current law does not work. I want to say that the U.S. drug czar Barry McCaffrey has acknowledged that the certification process is flawed. So, this amendment gives you a choice. You can vote for the status quo and send the signal from this Committee that everything is OK with the certification/decertification process. Do not monkey with it, do not change it, keep it like it is. That is what a no vote on my amendment means.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. BALLENGER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. HAMILTON. On the other hand, if you vote for the amendment, which I have acknowledged may not be perfect. You are signaling that you share my dissatisfaction with this certification/decertification process.
I want to send the signal from this Committee that this process we have in the law today does not work, and it does not work because it antagonizes nations, it does not get their cooperation. If you are going to succeed in getting a prohibition or reduction in the flow of drugs into this country, you have to have their cooperation, and you cannot do it without them. You cannot do it without them.
So, the question becomes how do you get that cooperation?
Mr. BALLENGER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. HAMILTON. I urge the Members to vote yes on this amendment, not because it is a perfect amendment, but because it sends the right signal. We can do better, we can do better than this current law.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ballenger?
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I was trying to ask the gentleman the reason for the 180 degree change from last year, when H.R. 3689 was introduced by Mr. Hamilton and signed, co-sponsored by Mr. Lantos and Mr. Ackerman and Mr. Payne. In that bill to amend the International Narcotics Control Program to establish an additional certification standard for certain areas, and in that particular thing it says, ''During the previous year, this country must have fully cooperated with the United States or has taken adequate steps on its own to achieve full compliance with the goals and objectives of the United Nations conviction against illicit traffic in narcotics.''
It seems the senior Member has changed 180 degrees from where he was 1 year ago.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. HAMILTON. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. BALLENGER. Yes, sir, I would be glad to.
Mr. HAMILTON. First of all, I apologize for not yielding to the gentleman earlier. I should have done that, but second, there are two reasons. One is Colombia and the other is Mexico.
Look what has happened in the last year with this statute that we now have on the books. We have the Colombians mad at us, we have the Mexicans mad at us and the cooperation is more difficult. You are correct. I supported the decertification and certification process when it first went into law, and I continued to support it until I went through the experience of the past year. I began to think more and more about it and come to the conclusion that this is not working very well.
So, that is the reason I have changed my mind on it. You are correct, I have changed my mind on it.
Mr. BALLENGER. Would the gentleman yield to me real briefly?
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Clement?
Mr. CLEMENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I sure have listened to what has been said and even though I am on this Committee, I am also the ranking Democrat on the Coast Guard Subcommittee of Transportation Infrastructure Committee, so I am very much involved in trying to combat drugs anyway, every way we possibly can.
I also realize that certification decertification program may not be perfect, but I am not ready, as the chairman says, to throw the baby out with the bath water. I think the suggestion that has been made by the chairman as well as by the Administration, that we need to have hearings, look at this matter seriously. Because it is obvious to me there are certain countries that surely have not cooperated with us very much at all in being able to combat drugs, which is destroying the moral fiber of our country, and been responsible for a lot of violent crime in the United States.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
I just wish once and for all we would truly have a war on illegal drugs. I do not think we have ever had a true war on illegal drugs, but this is not the time to throw out this certification decertification program.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Clement.
Mr. Sanford?
Mr. SANFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me. I will actually yield my time to you, sir.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sanford, I appreciate that. The Ranking Minority Member said that by voting for his amendment, we are adopting, expressing our opposition to the present process, and that we have no alternative.
I say the alternative is we all recognize that there may be a need to improve the process and to do it by way of a hearing in this Committee, and bring some experts in. You heard the State Department say that we should not be eliminating the procedure at this time, but let us take a look at it and review it.
Speaker Gingrich indicated that what we need is an analysis of how effective this is and to find a better way. I am all for finding a better way, but in the interim, let us not throw out a process that has been effective and called attention to the failings of the drug producing nations. I urge a no vote to the Hamilton measure. If there are no further speakers, I will call a vote on the Hamilton amendment.
All in favor of the Hamilton amendment, signify in the usual manner, ''Aye''?
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman GILMAN. All opposed?
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman GILMAN. The noes carried, and the amendment is not agreed to.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. HAMILTON. I ask for a roll call vote.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton asks for a roll call vote. Is there a second?
Mr. LANTOS. Yes, there is.
Chairman GILMAN. There is a second and we will conduct a roll call vote. The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman?
Chairman GILMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes no.
Mr. Goodling?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. BEREUTER. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes yes.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. SMITH. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Burton?
Mr. BURTON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton votes no.
Mr. Gallegly?
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. GALLEGLY. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger?
Mr. BALLENGER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes.
Mr. Manzullo?
Mr. MANZULLO. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
Mr. Royce?
Mr. ROYCE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce votes no.
Mr. King?
Mr. KING. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King votes no.
Mr. Kim?
Mr. KIM. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim votes no.
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. CHABOT. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. Sanford?
Mr. SANFORD. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford votes no.
Mr. Salmon?
Mr. SALMON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon votes no.
Mr. Houghton?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell votes yes.
Mr. Fox?
Mr. FOX. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Fox votes no.
Mr. McHugh?
Mr. MCHUGH. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh votes no.
Mr. Graham?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blunt?
Mr. BLUNT. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blunt votes no.
Mr. Moran?
Mr. MORAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Moran votes no.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. Brady?
Mr. BRADY. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady votes no.
Mr. Hamilton?
Mr. HAMILTON. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hamilton votes yes.
Mr. Gejdenson?
Mr. GEJDENSON. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson votes yes.
Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos votes yes.
Mr. Berman?
Mr. BERMAN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman votes yes.
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes yes.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega votes yes.
Mr. Martinez?
Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez votes yes.
Mr. Payne?
Mr. PAYNE. Yes.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Andrews?
Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Andrews votes yes.
Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes yes.
Mr. Brown?
Mr. BROWN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown votes yes.
Ms. McKinney?
Ms. MCKINNEY. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney votes yes.
Mr. Hastings?
Mr. HASTINGS. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings votes yes.
Ms. Danner?
Ms. DANNER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner votes yes.
Mr. Hilliard?
Mr. HILLIARD. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes yes.
Mr. Capps?
Mr. CAPPS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Capps votes yes.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes yes.
Mr. Wexler?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman?
Mr. ROTHMAN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman votes yes.
Mr. Clement?
Mr. CLEMENT. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Clement votes no.
Mr. Luther?
Mr. LUTHER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Luther votes yes.
Mr. Davis?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes yes.
Chairman GILMAN. Will the Clerk call the absentees?
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling?
Mr. GOODLING. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling votes no.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, what is the vote?
Chairman GILMAN. I am waiting for the Clerk to report the roll.
Ms. BLOOMER. There is a discrepancy.
Chairman GILMAN. They have a discrepancy, and bear with us, we will have it in just a moment.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Regular order, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. Would the Clerk report how I am recorded?
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman, you are recorded as voting no.
Chairman GILMAN. I request that the vote be changed to yes, and would you report the vote, then?
Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote, there were 24 ayes and 18 noes.
Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is agreed to. Are there further amendments to Title IV?
Mrs. McKinney.
Ms. MCKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. ''Amendment offered by Ms. McKinney. After Chapter 6 of Title IV, insert the following new chapter, and redesignate the subsequent chapter accordingly, conform the table of contents accordingly, and make other conforming amendments.''
Chairman GILMAN. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
[The amendment of Ms. McKinney appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order. Ms. McKinney is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. MCKINNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to offer this amendment which is known as the Arms Trade Code of Conduct. The bill has four major sections that set out the purpose and implementation of the bill.
The heart of the amendment can be found on page four in paragraph 12, that states a decision to provide military assistance and arms transfers to a government that is undemocratic, does not adequately protect human rights, is currently engaged in acts of armed aggression or is not fully participating in United Nations registered conventional arms, shall require a higher level of scrutiny than does a decision to provide such assistance in arms transfers to a government to which these conditions do not apply.
In the code, the President decides which governments meet the four standards set forward. That is, which countries promote democracy, respect human rights, are not engaged in arm aggression and participate in the United Nations register of conventional arms. This determination is made by the President. The Code provides two types of exemptions.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, the Committee is not in order. The gentlelady is entitled to that.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is correct. The Committee will come to order. The gentlelady will withhold. The gentlelady is entitled to be heard.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Ms. MCKINNEY. Thank you.
Chairman GILMAN. Ms. McKinney, please proceed.
Ms. MCKINNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A national security exemption is approved by Congress and an emergency waiver is based on the Presidential determination of vital U.S. interests in an emergency.
This amendment includes a sense of the Congress that hearings be held on the exemptions. Finally, the amendment defines military assistance and arms transfers and excludes intelligence transfers and transfers already approved by Congress.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not stop any single sale. It targets no specific country. It excludes intelligence transfers and merely establishes eligibility requirements for our sophisticated weaponry and military technology.
Arms sales to unstable countries have boomeranged on us for the last four of our military involvements, Iraq, Somalia, Panama and Haiti. The Code of Conduct is a way for us to promote democracy and stop the boomerang.
Also, we are not acting in a vacuum. The European Union, South Africa and the United Nations are all considering similar legislation. The Labor Party in Britain has listed a British Code as one of its top priorities. This amendment is consistent with our values and it promotes democracy. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms. McKinney.
Mr. Salmon?
Mr. SALMON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to urge a no vote on the Code of Conduct, on the vote on the McKinney amendment, because it permits military aid and sales only to countries that the President certifies as meeting the stated criteria relating to human rights, democracy and participation in the U.N. Arms Registry of Conventional Arms.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
While the President can propose national security exceptions, Congress must enact legislation concurring in such exceptions. On substantive and procedural grounds, the Code could seriously damage U.S. security relationships and threaten U.S. vital interests.
For example, we know that this amendment would require the President to certify that each of our allies in the Persian Gulf, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, meet the criteria of the amendment, and this would put the United States in the position of ending military assistance and arms transfers to these countries, one of which we went to war over just 6 years ago.
We should not forget that we have U.S. men and women stationed in most of these countries. Arms transfers, military assistance and training serve critical U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives, contribute to regional stability and help deter aggression, and they facilitate interoperability, should the U.S. assistance ever be required, such as in the Desert Storm operation.
Further, human rights and the democratic make up of the recipient governments are already among the criteria considered in determining U.S. policies on arms transfers. In some cases, they may be the primary criteria, but not in all cases.
The Administration and the Congress must have the ability to weigh all relevant factors to insure that overall U.S. interests are served by sensible, sound military aid and arms sales decisions. If we accept this McKinney amendment, the practical effect would be to force the President to present a list of countries for congressional approval each year. We now already have such an annual debate on most favored nation status for China. Many believe this is counterproductive to our relations with China. To repeat this process for dozens of nations is unwise.
Current law provides clear guidance to the President on the importance Congress places on human rights and democracy considerations. In addition, the Congress reviews all major arms transfers and controls the funding for military assistance and training. I urge a no on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. Is there anyone else's recognition on this? Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlelady from Georgia for displaying a dogged determination in pursuing this goal, and I fully support her in this effort.
The McKinney amendment does absolutely nothing to threaten U.S. national security. The President and the Congress may choose in their judgment to continue selling weapons to any nation they choose. What the McKinney amendment does, it reaffirms our values and it underscores the need to single out countries which, although they might receive weapons because that is in the U.S. national interest, are not democratic nations and do not respect human rights.
There is something very powerful about American values in the McKinney amendment. I think it is extremely important that this Committee and this Congress do not completely abandon the occasional statement of our values. This country was based on values. U.S. foreign policy should be predicated on values. The pragmatic considerations are fully protected by providing a Presidential waiver. Not a single country will be denied weapons as a result of this amendment, if the President certifies and Congress concurs that it is in the U.S. interest to continue supplying weapons to any nation.
What I think some of my colleagues would like to see is to sweep under the rug the issue of values that the McKinney amendment stresses. The McKinney amendment is a bold statement of American values, and I call on my colleagues to support it.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, Members, I want to speak in opposition to the McKinney amendment, and I want to correct what I think is an implicit impression that is incorrect, that is held by some who look at the subject, perhaps some on this Committee.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
The Congress, contrary to what supporters of the amendment are perhaps suggesting, indirectly, at least, does have a large role in determining which sales are made. We are not out of the process in any way. In many ways tangible and not so tangible, the Congress influences the sales that the Administration ends up notifying the Hill about.
There is an elaborate consultation procedure which one does not find in the statute books, whereby the Administration vets possible sales with the appropriate committees. Members and staff briefings are convened on proposed sales that are controversial, and contrary to what some may thing, Administrations of both parties in recent years have backed off of proposed weapon sales, as a result of congressional consultation.
We have one right now I can think of, but it is not being brought up here because the view is, Congress would object to it. So, I think it would be incorrect for anyone to assume that we do not have a role in the current process, which may be underlying the amendment.
We are in constant dialog in some parts of the Congress with the Administration about arms transfers which are conducted in coordination or concordance with the arms control, the Arms Export Control Act. The Congress significantly influences arms transfers in direct and practical ways through the years, beginning with consultations on the Javitz Report. Critics of arms transfer point to the fact that Congress has never enacted into law a resolution of disapproval on an arms sale.
That is not the correct measure, however. In fact, congressional passage of such a resolution would represent the actual breakdown in the existing process, not a measure of success. The process is not broken, it is working. I suggest we do not need this amendment, and I urge its opposition.
Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Berman?
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. BERMAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the amendment. I think the gentleman from Nebraska made some very good and useful points on this subject, but I think it is important to clarify a couple of things. First of all, I had an impression that the gentleman from Arizona said that the President is required to come to Congress any time he wants to send arms to a country that he cannot certify.
But, in fact there is a provision in this amendment that allows, in the case of an emergency where interests vital to the United States are affected, to provide military assistance and arms transfers to such a government, even without coming to the Congress. So, I think it is important to understand just what we are dealing with here.
But, second, the relationship and the reference to MFN is interesting. I would argue that there is a more compelling reason for Congress to be involved in the issue of military assistance to non-democratic countries that violate human rights, that fail to meet the criteria of this, that Congress play the role in the participation of the balance between our strategic interests and the promotion of our goals and the consequences of our arms transfers, far more compelling than our annual debate on MFN.
There is a higher congressional interest in this issue than there is on MFN and a higher public interest. The Middle East countries, that was a very useful issue to raise, the Gulf countries, because there is a perfect example of some countries that probably on their face do not meet the criteria of this proposal.
A couple of things to say. We had ample arms relationships with these countries before the Gulf War broke out. No one for a second believed that those arms shipments that had gone to many of those Gulf countries, gave those countries the ability to defend themselves against a power like Iraq. That is why we went there to support them. Nothing in this bill restricts the ability of us to preplace our munitions, to provide our troops for the other allies to participate in the seas in the defense of this particular area.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
I would argue that the consequences of a too liberal policy of licensing commercial arms sales has worked against the service of our national interests in so many different parts of the world. The irony is that the arms we send to Kuwait were soon in the hands of the Iraqis, and thank heavens that the most sophisticated arms that they captured, they were not able to use against our own troops in that particular case.
So, I think this is a pretty carefully thought out amendment. It provides that key loophole in the case of our vital interests to allow quick action, therefore, it is not too rigid. I think it is the statement of values that Mr. Lantos referred to, and I think in the end, it rectifies an imbalance that does not give Congress the role it should have in participating in striking the balance between the goals we seek here and our immediate strategic interests, and I support it. Thank you.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Who is seeking recognition? Mr. Blunt is next in order. Mr. Blunt.
Mr. BLUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to speak in opposition to the amendment. I certainly appreciate the sentiment behind it, and the persistence in which it is offered.
I have a couple of concerns about this. Unlike a foreign aid issue, this is an issue of not whether someone is going to purchase this equipment, but where are they going to purchase American equipment? It seems to me that the current system, where the President uses many of these criteria to make the determination, is a better system. What I envision that I think would be troublesome would be on an annual basis, the President recommending that the Congress approve a country to be able to purchase American military equipment, and then we have an annual congressional debate about the merits of countries that we need to, should, and are ultimately going to wind up dealing with in this area.
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
I do not think our foreign policy would benefit from that kind of annual debate. I do not think this would have any impact on the ability of the countries involved to ultimately receive this equipment, and frankly, I think puts both the Congress, the State Department and the White House in an untenable position annually, as they would make recommendations to the Congress.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I first would like to commend the gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. McKinney, for proposing this amendment, and I certainly would like to associate myself with the comments made earlier by Mr. Berman and Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Chairman, I think the spirit and the intent of this amendment, I think the Members ought to seriously consider this. It is ironic, Mr. Chairman, that the biggest suppliers of arms in the nation, ironically, are also among the members of the super club in the Security Council. Our nation is no exception.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, bullets and guns are not out there to grow gardens or make forests. They are out there to kill human beings. I think the intent and the spirit, at least in my understanding of what Ms. McKinney is trying to tell the Members of the Committee and to the Congress, is that who, of all the people of the nations of the world are most affected by these arms sales given to other countries, Third World countries? These are the countries that spend more money on a per capita basis because the suppliers are there to provide them with guns and bullets to kill other human beings.
I think we have forgotten the fact that we have given Iraq $5 billion simply because we hated Iran more than we did Iraq, and what happened? Saddam Hussein turned around and used the same weapons that we gave him to invade Kuwait. So, there is a little contradiction here, Mr. Chairman, and I think nothing more could be stated truly than what Mr. Lantos has said. We are talking about a real sense of values.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
If we are the top supplier of arms in the world, it raises a question about the military industry, and I recall what President Eisenhower said before leaving his office, and that is, ''Beware of the might of the military industry.'' The fact is, that if we are commercialized and to say that it is all right to buildup an arsenal of enough, right now, in the capacity that we have, Mr. Chairman, we have the capacity now with our atomic arsenals to blow this planet 17 times over, by ourselves. We do not need France, we do not need Great Britain. We do not need the Chinese or their atomic bombs. So, there is no question as far as I am concerned about our defense system. We have the capability.
But, I think we need to look clearly and understand and appreciate where Ms. McKinney is coming from with this amendment. I fully support this amendment and I hope my colleagues will do the same.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. King?
Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for Ms. McKinney and what she is trying to do with this amendment, and certainly, human rights should be paramount in our foreign policy and in our arms dealings.
However, I oppose the amendment because in the real world in which we live, I do not believe human rights can be the only criteria in every instance. I want to make some historical analogies, even though it did not involve necessarily just the transfer of arms. But, in World War II, to defeat Hitler, we had to ally ourselves with one of the worst violators of human rights in all history, Stalin's Russia.
In the war against Iraq to liberate Kuwait, obviously we had to ally ourselves with certain countries which do not practice democratic principles, yet we felt it was in our national interest and ultimately in the interest of mankind that we put together that coalition.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
The same thing applies, I believe, to the transfer of weapons and the sale of arms in that there may well be countries that we do not believe that they share the same values that we do, but nevertheless, the ultimate goal is in our interest and, indeed, in the interest of the people of the region.
I think it would unnecessarily hamstring the President of the United States in affecting an effective foreign policy. It would also, I think, even though they are all waivers where a certification could be given, I think that, again, that could be an unnecessary impediment to put in the way. If, for instance, there is potential aggression and we want to supply weapons to a nation to resist that aggression, for us to have to, in effect, first state that they violate human rights, but second, we are giving them a waiver, or we are saying it is in the national interest, to me, that undermines the relationship that we would need at that critical time, where we would have to have a firm relationship between us and that other country to resist the aggression.
So, I think that the amendment is very well intentioned, but I think in the real world, in trying to affect the type of democratic systems around the world, this would be, perhaps it would make us feel good in the short term, but in the long term, it would be extremely counterproductive, harmful to democracy, and ultimately, extremely harmful to the advancement of human rights. I urge a no vote.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. King.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. SHERMAN. I find this bill or amendment a difficult one to make up my mind on, but I am particularly concerned with putting it in this bill. As I understand it, it has been a long time since we got an authorization bill through the Congress. To have this bill carry the Code of Conduct with it just diminishes the likelihood that the entire package is going to pass both Houses. I wonder if the proponent of the amendment would explain why she would not just bring this up as a separate bill, since it does not, as far as I can tell, relate to——
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. LANTOS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.
Mr. LANTOS. I just would like to remind the gentleman, if I may, that without this amendment, the bill in previous years has failed. So, I think it is very unfair to burden the gentlelady from Georgia with that potential outcome.
Mr. SHERMAN. Well, I want to stress, if we adopt this amendment and the bill fails, it will probably not be attributable to this one amendment. But, still, when a camel has to enter a race, you do not want to add one more straw to its back. As I understand this bill, the focus is to authorize the expenditure of funds for the State Department and for foreign aid. While I guess anything within the purview of this Committee could be added to this bill, what would be the disadvantage of bringing this forward as a separate bill?
Ms. MCKINNEY. We actually had a floor vote on this amendment, but beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. I think that this amendment strengthens the bill, actually.
Mr. SHERMAN. You think it is more likely——
Ms. MCKINNEY. Yes, because it makes a much needed moral statement about where we need to be in the conduct of our foreign policy. This is a very serious issue. In fact, I could also add that this amendment will not deny one country its arms transfers.
In fact, the President has two waiver availabilities. One is for the emergency waiver, which the President makes on his own determination. The other one is the national security waiver that he comes to Congress for.
Mr. SHERMAN. I think I understand that.
Ms. MCKINNEY. So, this is not going to target any particular country, it is not going to target any particular arms sale.
Mr. LANTOS. Will my friend yield again?
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. SHERMAN. Just one comment and then I will yield. I am new to this Congress. This is the first time I have heard that when you have a highly complex bill that you are trying to get through both Houses, adding an extremely controversial amendment is the way to grease the skids. But, I am new to Congress, and with that, I will yield to a more senior Member, Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Well, depending on the rule under which this bill will be debated, an amendment can knock out this provision on the floor, as well. Those of us who feel that this is a desirable measure should, in this Committee, vote for it. If we lose this measure on the floor, well, that is what happens. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. SHERMAN. I do not know if I am in the category of those who would support the substance of this amendment, but I hope that some of us would be given the opportunity to vote for this as a free standing bill, as opposed to the more complicated question of whether to add it to this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. Before I recognize the next speaker, I would like to ask the gentlelady, the proponent of the bill, how do you reconcile your opposition to the certification process in drugs with the certification process in this measure?
Ms. MCKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I, in fact, am not certain that I do not support the certification process.
Chairman GILMAN. Did you vote for the certification process?
Ms. MCKINNEY. I did vote to support Congressman Hamilton's amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. Well, we hope that with that thinking, you will reconsider your vote. Thank you.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Ms. MCKINNEY. I understand that the Chairman needs some votes.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith?
Mr. SMITH. I notice that there is a lot of discipline on that side of the aisle today.
Mr. GEJDENSON. It is a big change, Mr. Smith, but do not worry, it will not last.
Mr. SMITH. I notice you are all staying around, too. We are all bailing out over here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me, and let me just say that I support this amendment. I think it has some flaws and those flaws can probably be ironed out between now and the floor, perhaps in a conference.
For example, the section dealing with promoting democracy says that such government was chosen by and permits free and fair elections. I know, having been involved as chairman of the Helsinki Commission and also of the International Operations and Human Rights, our Subcommittee, time and again when you talk to people who have been observers on the ground, when we deploy observers to elections in places like Bosnia, determining whether or not it was fair is very often a very, very hard call. Free, maybe yes for people who were able to get there. But, for example, whether or not the media was controlled is hard to answer. So this provides, I think, a standard that may be very hard to meet.
Having said that, looking at the other sections, especially the human rights section and the aggression section, I think we need to raise the standard, even though it is very inconvenient when we are arming the world. I do not know how many of you ever heard the Capitol Steps, but years ago, at, I think it was a Broadcasters' Dinner, they stood up and they sang, We Arm the World, to the tune of Michael Jackson's We are the World. Of course, they are very good at satire and they really made their point that night.
We have to realize as the chief armers of the world, that we need to take seriously our commitments that we are not, however unwittingly, arming and aiding and abetting rogue regimes or soon to be rogue regimes. So, I think this standard of conduct at least gets us going in the right direction. It is not perfect. Perhaps we can work with the language on the democracy end of it, because I would love to see the whole world one big democracy, but there are countries that are in transition, and again, the free and fair elections, particularly the fair part, is very hard to determine in many instances.
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
So, I think it is a good step in the right direction, and I support her and Mr. Rohrabacher in their amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Rothman.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to voice my support for the McKinney amendment and give praise to her for an obviously very well thought out and conscientious effort to accomplish a number of different but important goals.
I voted for Mr. Hamilton's amendment, as well, and I do believe that there is consistency in that vote and my upcoming vote in support of Ms. McKinney's amendment in the following way. I hope to have a better certification process as a result of the vote this afternoon in support of Mr. Hamilton, a better process for that, and so I do not see them as inconsistent.
The goals that we are trying to accomplish or appear to be accomplished in the McKinney amendment are to let the world know that we support democracy and human rights, yet, at the same time, in a bow to real politick, we are ready to deal with people who are not as democratic as we are, in order to assist in their transition in freeing their people.
So, it gives a bow to the major competing values and interests that I think we have to support. So, I am delighted to vote for this amendment, as I was delighted to vote for Mr. Hamilton's.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rothman.
Mr. Campbell.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like my colleagues please to take note of the provision on page nine of the bill. This deals with the emergency situation and the gentlelady from Georgia observed that the President can always cite an emergency and go ahead with the arms transfer.
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
But, please note, the President then has to submit a report to Congress. That is at page nine, clause two. ''President shall submit to the Congress at the earliest possible date reports concerning determinations with respect to these emergencies.'' This report has to identify the nature of the emergency, the type of military assistance and arms transfers provided to the foreign government.
So, you are going to require putting on public notice the recipient country. The emergency exception, therefore, does not go as far as I think we need to go in allowing the President flexibility in the following circumstance, where it is in our national interest to transfer arms, but not to have it known publicly. Now, it is not impossible that that situation arise. I am thinking of a few.
Here is one. Suppose it is in our interest to get arms to Saudi Arabia, so that Saudi Arabia transfers them to another Arab country. But, if we gave the arms directly to the other Arab country, let us for the sake of argument say, another Arab country threatened by Iraq. It has happened. Or threatened by Iran, for that matter. But, if it becomes public knowledge that we are giving the arms to that country, it really assists Iran or Iraq in this hypothetical.
Mr. LANTOS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CAMPBELL. I would be honored to yield to my colleague and friend.
Mr. LANTOS. As always, my good friend from California makes a very valid point. I wonder if by unanimous consent we might not insert the phrase, ''when such notification is not against the U.S. national interest''? Would that satisfy you?
Mr. CAMPBELL. It would be perfectly satisfactory to me, if the gentlelady would accept it?
Mr. LANTOS. Would the gentlelady accept that modification?
Ms. MCKINNEY. I will accept that.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. LANTOS. Then I make that unanimous consent request.
Chairman GILMAN. Would you indicate where that provision goes in the bill?
Mr. LANTOS. In the sentence the gentleman from California just read.
Mr. CAMPBELL. If I might, if my good friend——
Chairman GILMAN. Would you identify the paragraph?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Page nine, line ten. ''The President,'' and I am taking my friend's suggestion, '' . . . when not inconsistent with the national interest,'' then continue the rest, '' . . . shall submit to the Congress,'' and so forth.
Chairman GILMAN. Does the sponsor agree to that amendment?
Ms. MCKINNEY. Yes.
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, that was in my letter, so I am glad you had some time to think about it.
Ms. MCKINNEY. I never saw your letter.
Chairman GILMAN. The measure is amended. Mr. Campbell, have you completed?
Mr. CAMPBELL. I have. I yield back. Thank you. I have three or four other great hypotheticals, but if you win your argument, get out of Court.
Mr. LANTOS. I have several phrases to offer my friend.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Andrews?
Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been privileged to be in this institution for 7 years now, and some remarkable and amazing things have happened, not attributed to my presence here, by the way, but they have happened.
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
The day I took office, Nelson Mandela was in prison, and today he is the president of his country, without violent revolution making it happen.
The day I took office, it would have seemed inconceivable that the ceremony that took place on the White House lawn in September 1993 could have ever taken place. It would have seemed inconceivable that some of the progress that has been made in Ireland or in Asia could have taken place since that time.
I think that the reason that the United States has played a leading role in making those things happen is not solely due to the might of our military forces, although they are mighty, indeed. It is not solely due to the skill of our diplomats, although they are skillful, indeed. I think we have played a leading role in these affairs because we are recognized as having moral authority around the world. I believe that what the gentlewoman from Georgia is doing is giving some legislative manifestation to that moral authority.
She is saying that, as a country and as a matter of basic policy, we place the moral standing of our country and whom we help above the short term interests of any industry or any company in making a profit by selling arms. I think that should be a basic proposition of American foreign policy. I think that the gentlewoman has very wisely and judicially permitted exceptions where a true national emergency would require a deviation from that policy. I think that she has shown the correct balance between the legislative and executive branches in requiring the President to report back to us when he or she exercises that emergency authority, and I think that the gentlewoman should be commended for offering the amendment.
I do not believe that when the students in Tiananmen Square risked and gave up their lives and hoisted a replica of the Statue of Liberty that they were emulating us because of the might of our armed forces or the skill of our diplomats. I think they did what they did because they admired the force of our morality. If we in the Congress are not willing to do the same thing, then I do not think we are headed in the right policy direction.
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
I enthusiastically embrace and support Ms. McKinney's amendment and would urge my colleagues on the Committee to do so. I yield back my time.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to echo the remarks that we just heard in terms of the power of a moral position. The United States has been the most powerful nation in the world since our founding fathers declared war when they declared independence from the most powerful military power in the world. What gave us that most powerful position was not the size of our Army or the size of our Navy. We defeated the British, who were the most potent military force in that time, because we declared ourselves to be a moral people.
I am enthusiastically supporting Ms. McKinney's amendment. I believe it totally consistent with American tradition, and I think that in the long term, it will well serve the interests not only of human freedom, but in the interest of our national security, as well as international stability.
The United States, our founding fathers said, should always be on the side of the oppressed. That does not mean we have to intervene everywhere in the world, but when we do involve ourselves in other countries, we should be on the side of those people who are struggling for freedom and not on the side of those dictators who are trying to oppose freedom and trying to oppress their own people.
During the cold war, and I asked my colleagues on the Republican side please to understand the cold war is over. We should not be making the same type of determinations that we made during the cold war. During the cold war, compromises were necessary. We had to deal with these gangsters and these thugs, because there was another big gangster and their friends wanted to destroy the United States of America.
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
As my friend, Mr. King, stated, we had to ally ourselves in World War II with a totalitarian power. But we are not in World War II, and we are not in the cold war. We should be standing for freedom and democracy.
Let me note this about the cold war. I went in 1981 to the White House with Ronald Reagan and served as Ronald Reagan's speech writer for 7 years. I believe it was Ronald Reagan's differentiation in policy between that of the former anti communist policies of the United States, and Ronald Reagan made it a pro freedom policy, that made the difference in winning the cold war. It was Ronald Reagan that came forward and proposed the National Endowment for Democracy. It was Ronald Reagan who actually started talking about democracy rather than just defeating communism.
When we started instead of supporting the dictatorships in Latin American like the Samozas and the rest of them, when we started supporting those democratic elections in those countries and capturing the hearts of people everywhere and captured the support and the allegiance of the young idealists throughout the world because we were standing for what we were supposed to stand for, that is when the walls of the Kremlin began to crumble. Ronald Reagan won the cold war without having to have a military confrontation and, at the same time, pulling back from the alliances with dictatorships.
Last of all, let me say that this is a very practical amendment. We should not be arming dictators around the world with weapons that they will use to suppress their own people. What will happen if those people eventually succeed in overthrowing their dictator? What will happen at that point? They will face debts.
They are indebted to us, to the United States, for providing weapons that were used to oppress them. This is no way for any type of long term relationship. We should be on the side of the people and not some military elite in these Third World countries around the world.
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
In fact, Ms. McKinney's amendment will permit the diplomats in the United States of America to use this as leverage throughout the Third World to encourage these military forehanded dictatorships to liberalize and to head toward democracy.
This will be great leverage for these people who are basically nationalists to be told your country will not be able to buy arms and have this type of a relationship with the United States unless you begin liberalizing your policies and respecting human rights and start joining the family of nations rather than establishing some terrorist state and terrorizing their own people.
With that, I would like to thank Ms. McKinney for this great amendment. I am sorry that she had to compromise a bit with Mr. Campbell because I think we should have these discussions. Frankly, I think these discussions as to who we support and who we should not support should be right out in the open. We should not be afraid to tell the world whose side we are on, and we should not be afraid to put ourselves on the line one way or the other.
Ms. McKinney, I enthusiastically join you and am a proud co-sponsor of your amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Davis?
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a question of Congressman McKinney about the provision of the amendment that would require the President to seek approval of the Congress in a situation in which he or she felt that the national security interest balanced against human rights considerations warrant approval of sales of arms.
Ms. MCKINNEY. If the President felt that the national interest was at stake, then the President would bring that request for a waiver to the Congress, and then we would have a vote on that. It would be debated in national debate.
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. DAVIS. And my question is why are we requiring that decision to be presented to the Congress for approval as distinguished from setting standards by which the executive branch would make that decision unilaterally?
Ms. MCKINNEY. Actually, you know, I view this as a consensus building mechanism that is built inside the bill because once the decision is made to transfer the arms, we do not know what will happen in the future.
If history is any indicator, we might end up having to resolve conflict based on the fact that we have transferred these arms to basically unstable areas, unstable regimes and to dictators. If that is the case, then at least the Nation itself will have been involved in the decisionmaking process through its representatives in Congress, and we also will have to accept the outcome of that decision as well.
Mr. DAVIS. Let me just comment that I have a concern about this provision of the bill, and the concern is very similar to what I thought was the wisdom behind the Hamilton amendment that we adopted earlier today.
Setting forth standards by which the executive branch will exercise its discretion, and in the case of the Hamilton amendment it dealt with drug activity, to me seemed to be a more superior approach than the one we are outlining here in this bill where we are injecting the Congress into a decisionmaking process that would seem to be perfectly capable of being handled by the executive branch subject to whatever standards we might set for the exercise of that discretion.
Ms. MCKINNEY. The problem with that, though, is that some are of view that the standards that are set by the President need to have this kind of Congressional input and Congressional review.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Kim?
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. KIM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise in opposition to this amendment. I urge my colleagues to take a look at this again before you make a final decision on this. I think we have already intact the procedure necessary. This to me is redundant, duplicative micromanagement.
Right now we have a current process by which the executive branch must review all proposed arms sales. Under the Arms Control Export Act, the executive branch office must review to make sure that all arms transfers support U.S. foreign policy interests.
Many of the issues raised by this amendment are already included. I do not know how many countries can meet these pages and pages of code of conduct. I wonder even if the U.S. can meet this code of conduct. We are going to be busy preparing lists of countries that are acceptable to us and meet our code of conduct. While we are doing this, let's take a look at it from a practical point of view. We are going to lose a lot of overseas defense contracts to other countries.
I think that this is really, in my opinion, unnecessary, another mandate from Congress. I do not see anything wrong with our existing system. I think we should leave it the way it is.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
The last speaker on this measure will be Mr. McHugh.
Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do not want to take up more time of the Committee. Obviously everyone has thought about this, and I commend both sides for giving that attention to detail.
I was curious. As has happened here earlier, if there is someone here from the State Department who might share with us their view on this proposal?
Chairman GILMAN. Ms. Larkin.
Ms. LARKIN. Yes. Thank you, Mr. McHugh and Mr. Chairman.
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Ms. Larkin, is there anyone from DOD here?
Ms. LARKIN. No, Mr. Chairman, and this is an Administration position that we oppose this amendment for a number of reasons, most of which have been mentioned here this morning.
The first is that the Administration does share the goals and the policies that should be factors in arms transfers, and they are currently factors in arms transfers that we undertake. The concern is that they would be the exclusive factors. There are other reasons such as regional stability that come into play when these decisions are made, and the President needs that flexibility.
The second point is that very lack of flexibility that it allows the President and that the procedures, the emergency waiver, for example, provided are very cumbersome. In the emergency situation, the problem is by the time an emergency has arisen and transfers are made, it is generally too little too late.
On countries that do not meet this criteria, there are provisions included where this could go, but it generally would require a certification and an annual vote by the Congress for each country that does not meet all of these criteria.
The last point I will make is one that was made by Mr. Bereuter earlier, which is that the Congress already has a voice and vote on arms sales and transfers, both in that major arms sales are notified and may be stopped, and the second, of course, is power of the purse in terms of how these things are funded.
Mr. MCHUGH. I assume then when you say Administration position that DOD also opposes?
Ms. LARKIN. Yes, sir, as does the Department of State.
Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you very much.
I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. McHugh.
If there are no further Members seeking recognition——
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman? For a unanimous consent.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell on a unanimous consent request.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, on a unanimous consent request, the gentlelady from Georgia and I have spoken, and I wanted to be sure that the actual phraseology is agreeable to everyone. It happens occasionally that you have to go back and make sure it is right. The phrase would be, and this would be on Page 9, Line 10, after the words the President.
Chairman GILMAN. Is that on the Campbell amendment?
Mr. CAMPBELL. It is the Campbell amendment. Excuse me. I think it was Lantos. Lantos asked unanimous consent. Congressman Lantos asked unanimous consent to amend.
Chairman GILMAN. All right. The Lantos amendment to the McKinney amendment.
Mr. CAMPBELL. It should read after the word President on Line 10 on Page 9, ''when, in his determination, it is not contrary to the national interest to do so,''.
Chairman GILMAN. Does the original sponsor agree?
Ms. MCKINNEY. Yes.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you.
Chairman GILMAN. If there is no objection, the amendment is agreed to.
We now proceed with the vote on the McKinney amendment. All in favor signify in the usual manner.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Opposed.
[Chorus of noes.]
The noes have it.
Ms. MCKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
Chairman GILMAN. A recorded vote is requested. Is there a second? A second is agreed to. The roll call vote is demanded, and the clerk will call the roll.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman?
Chairman GILMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes no.
Mr. Goodling?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach?
Mr. LEACH. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach votes yes.
Mr. Hyde?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. BEREUTER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes no.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. SMITH. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes yes.
Mr. Burton?
Mr. BURTON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton votes no.
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes no.
Mr. Ballenger?
Mr. BALLENGER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes.
Mr. Manzullo?
Mr. MANZULLO. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
Mr. Royce?
Mr. ROYCE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce votes no.
Mr. King?
Mr. KING. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King votes no.
Mr. Kim?
Mr. KIM. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim votes no.
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. CHABOT. No.
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Sanford?
Mr. SANFORD. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford votes no.
Mr. Salmon?
Mr. SALMON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon votes no.
Mr. Houghton?
Mr. HOUGHTON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes no.
Mr. Campbell?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell votes yes.
Mr. Fox?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh?
Mr. MCHUGH. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh votes no.
Mr. Graham?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blunt?
Mr. BLUNT. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blunt votes no.
Mr. Moran?
Mr. MORAN. No.
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Moran votes no.
Mr. Brady?
Mr. BRADY. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady votes no.
Mr. Hamilton?
Mr. HAMILTON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hamilton votes no.
Mr. Gejdenson?
Mr. GEJDENSON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson votes no.
Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos votes yes.
Mr. Berman?
Mr. BERMAN. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman votes yes.
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Pass.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman passes.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega votes yes.
Mr. Martinez?
Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez votes yes.
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. Payne?
Mr. PAYNE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes yes.
Mr. Andrews?
Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Andrews votes yes.
Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes yes.
Mr. Brown?
Mr. BROWN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown votes yes.
Ms. McKinney?
Ms. MCKINNEY. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney votes yes.
Mr. Hastings?
Mr. HASTINGS. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings votes yes.
Ms. Danner?
Ms. DANNER. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner votes yes.
Mr. Hilliard?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Capps?
Mr. CAPPS. Yes.
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Capps votes yes.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. SHERMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes no.
Mr. Wexler?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman?
Mr. ROTHMAN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman votes yes.
Mr. Clement?
Mr. CLEMENT. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Clement votes yes.
Mr. Luther?
Mr. LUTHER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Luther votes yes.
Mr. Davis?
Mr. DAVIS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes no.
Mr. Goodling?
Mr. GOODLING. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling votes no.
Chairman GILMAN. Would the clerk call the absentees?
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr Hyde?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly?
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Fox?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham?
Mr. GRAHAM. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham votes no.
Mr. Hilliard?
Mr. HILLIARD. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes yes.
Mr. Wexler?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Present.
Ms. BLOOMER. Present.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the vote.
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes yes.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote, there were 21 ayes and 23 noes.
Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is not agreed to.
I am now asking unanimous consent that with the exception of Mr. Berman's amendment, which was the subject of—the Committee will come to order. This has to do with the remainder of our time this afternoon.
I am asking unanimous consent that with the exception of Mr. Berman's amendment, which was the subject of a previous unanimous consent agreement, during the further consideration of Title IV only the following amendments will be in order.
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
First, an amendment by Mr. Ackerman relating to KEDO, to be debatable for 10 minutes. Second, an amendment by Mr. Bereuter to the amendment by Mr. Ackerman, to be debatable for 5 minutes; an amendment by Mr. Gejdenson regarding arms transfer policy, to be debatable for 20 minutes; an amendment by Mr. Ackerman relating to Caribbean regional FMF, to be debatable for 10 minutes; and an amendment by Mr. Payne relating to Morocco, to be debatable for 20 minutes, provided that in each case the time shall be equally divided and controlled by the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member or their designee.
Without objection, the unanimous consent request is agreed to.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. Yes, Mr. Gejdenson?
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Gilman, I have an amendment at the desk which is in the list you have just read, and I think it is fairly non-controversial. I would hope if Members pay attention we can go through this in less than the 20 minutes that has been allocated. I do not want to cut off debate, but basically my concern——
Chairman GILMAN. If you would withhold?
The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Gejdenson that the appropriate section in Title IV——
Mr. GEJDENSON. I ask that the amendment be considered as read.
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you.
Chairman GILMAN. Under the previous order, time is divided under the control of the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member or his designee.
I recognize the gentleman from Connecticut for 10 minutes.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
I think while many of us in this room share the goal of Ms. McKinney and it certainly is laudable, one of the clear problems is that whether a country is operating a MIG or an American product or a French product, a Mirage, it is fairly irrelevant as far as its military consequences. It has more to do with lots of other considerations.
One of the things that I have always thought was needed was a multi-lateral approach to this. I would think that the only people opposed to this amendment in the room are those representing the Administration because administrations, of course, notoriously do not want Congress to be involved in the decisionmaking process. If any of us ever get to be part of Administration, we will probably choose the same position.
What this does, however, is it asks the Administration and says that they shall—not that they should or we would like them to, but they shall—within the next 6 months initiate with the group that followed COCOM, and it is called the Wassener Group and is about 35 countries, to begin a process where there would be a multi-lateral review of arms sales based on the very same ingredients Ms. McKinney raised in her legislation.
It would in no way take away America's ability to act unilaterally, but what it would begin to do is it would begin to establish a process by which instead of simple competition for market share, the values that many of us, if not most of the countries in the world, hold dear could actually be implemented in a multi-lateral policy. The problem with unilateral policies is their effect is just usually to shift the manufacture.
I would be happy to yield to Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Will the gentleman yield?
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. BEREUTER. I know that the Administration will oppose the gentleman's amendment because of the mandate, and I am wondering if the gentleman would consider a friendly amendment to replace the word shall in both instances with should. If he would, this gentleman would support him, and I think you would find a lot of support.
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. GEJDENSON. Before the gentleman puts his feet in clay here or cement, I would not accept the amendment.
Frankly, the Administration could do it without us on the should basis. They have not done it. They have not indicated any great desire to do it. That is not just this Administration. It is every previous Administration. I think this is an important issue.
With the demise of the Soviet Union and the Chinese having lots of regional problems, we are in danger of aiding and abetting an arms race which will destabilize many parts of the world. The only way to do that is to force us into a process.
At the end of a year they can come back and tell us they have not done it, but I want them to go through the exercise, and I want them to try to do it. I think this is the right place to start. As much as I know it is a friendly offer, I would have to reject it.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Berman?
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would just——
Chairman GILMAN. I am sorry. The time is controlled by the Ranking Minority Member.
Mr. GEJDENSON. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. BERMAN. I want to speak very much for this. The most stunning thing about the post cold war era is the total collapse of the leadership of the free world in making a priority the notion of multi-lateral restraints on selling destabilizing and sophisticated offensive conventional weapons into certain parts of the world.
When the Gulf War ended, Jim Baker came to this Committee and said never again can we let what happened in the Gulf region happen again. President Bush spoke to the Congress on the subject. All of a sudden within 2 months after the end of that war, the priority lessened, and it was quite shocking how little we do now on a multi-lateral basis to try and impose these restraints.
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
I congratulate the gentleman from Connecticut. This is a critical priority, and it should be done on a multi-lateral basis. We should be leaders in trying to make that happen.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter, are you taking the Republican side?
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I would request the time on this side of the aisle. I will yield to my colleagues as they request either pro or con on the Gejdenson amendment.
I was just trying to help the gentleman from Connecticut with his Administration. I know he needs help occasionally.
I would like to have seen him perhaps take out the word should. I am not going to press the point by offering an amendment, and I would support the gentleman's amendment because I think he is on the right track, even though he leaves in the word shall.
I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. As you do, I ask my colleagues on my side of the aisle at least to think about this amendment versus a McKinney amendment that may come on the floor.
I would yield to any of my colleagues on this side of the aisle who would like to have time on this subject.
Chairman GILMAN. Is anyone else seeking time on our side of the aisle?
Mr. BEREUTER. Seeing none, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman GILMAN. All right. On the Gejdenson amendment. All in favor signify in the usual manner.
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
[Chorus of ayes.]
Opposed.
[No response.]
The amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the amendment.
Mr. ACKERMAN. It is the KEDO amendment. In the interest of time, Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent to——
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Ackerman. In Section 411 relating to nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining and related agencies, strike $25,000,000——
Chairman GILMAN. I ask consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Under the previous order, time is divided under the control of the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member or his designee.
Mr. Ackerman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would raise the contribution to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, or KEDO, from $25,000,000 annually to $30,000,000 annually, which is what the President requested.
KEDO was created as a result of the 1994 agreed framework between the U.S. and North Korea. That agreement placed a freeze on North Korea's heavy water nuclear program, eliminating a potentially serious security threat to the United States and its allies. We in turn agreed to form and fund KEDO to substitute the energy that the North Koreans lose by closing their heavy water nuclear plant.
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
As implementing the agreed framework accelerates, KEDO's need for funding has increased. For example, the administrative expenses, which the U.S. shares with South Korea and Japan, has grown as the new light water reactor project has progressed. They must also continue to meet their heavy fuel oil commitments to North Korea.
The Administration has requested $5,000,000 more than last year in the appropriations level because KEDO is currently in debt partially because of a 20 percent increase in the price of heavy fuel oil and partially because the Congress has been slow in providing the earlier funding.
By increasing the allocation for KEDO, the U.S. will be taking a strong affirmative action to address this situation at precisely the point when both South Korea and Japan are about to provide the initial funding, which amounts to billions of dollars compared to our $30,000,000, for the construction of the light water reactors promised to the North Koreans in the agreed framework.
Without proper funding, they will not be able to operate or carry out their objectives, thereby weakening the credibility of the U.S. leadership, jeopardizing the implementation of the agreed framework and contributing to the rising security tensions in the Korean Peninsula.
Full funding of the request is the best way to promote our American interests in regional security and global nonproliferation and represents a wide investment, given the dangers posed by North Korea in resuming its nuclear program, and I urge support for the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I speak in support of half of the Ackerman amendment. The Administration has requested $5,000,000 more in authorization than the legislation before us does propose. If my colleagues have had any kind of classified briefings regarding the situation in North Korea today, I think they would not find it comfortable to be second guessing the Administration on a matter of a relatively small amount of money, $5,000,000. I believe it would be appropriate to provide the full requested $30,000,000 for KEDO, as opposed to $25,000,000.
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
I do, however, believe it should be noted that the gentleman, by Section 2 of his amendment, is increasing the total amount and is finding no alternative cutback in any area. I would hope the gentleman would have found an opportunity to reduce some spending in some area of $5,000,000 so that it would be in fact neutral.
I am prepared to offer an amendment to strike the second part of the gentleman's amendment unless he would agree to accept a unanimous consent request or make the motion himself.
I would say that I understand that if we do not boost the total amount, it means that the additional $5,000,000 for KEDO, Korean Energy Development Organization, would have to be taken from some other aspect of the components of this Section 411, such as nonproliferation, anti-terrorism or demining. That is a problem I would leave to the Administration in the absence of a determination by the gentleman where he is going to pull $5,000,000 elsewhere.
I would wonder if the gentleman would be willing to make the change or if I have to offer a motion for that purpose? I would yield to the gentleman if he cares to——
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman yields to Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. BEREUTER. Alternatively, as my light gets yellow——
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. We are working it out with your staff, Mr. Gilman.
Is the gentleman requesting that I make or that you make a unanimous consent request that we would delete the last paragraph?
Mr. BEREUTER. That is correct.
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. ACKERMAN. One of my concerns, Mr. Bereuter, is that firstly, as of course you realize, finding funds and putting things in and out——
Mr. BEREUTER. It is not easy.
Mr. ACKERMAN. We did it from a different perspective, and I understand we will be considering other measures before us today. We will be asking for an increase in hundreds of millions of dollars in some areas with no savings found.
However, I am willing to look at this with you, but my concern is if you give me an assurance that we will try to find the full funding elsewhere in the process rather than taking it out of the anti-terrorism money that both you and I and Chairman Gilman are so concerned about and we have your assurance, I would be glad to work with you.
Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time, I have a couple of other points in mind where we could find $5,000,000, and I will work with the gentleman trying to find those.
Mr. ACKERMAN. That is good enough for me, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Does the gentleman then agree to the amendment?
Mr. BEREUTER. I would ask unanimous consent that Section 2 of the Ackerman amendment be deleted.
Chairman GILMAN. Is there an objection?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Given the assurances, Mr. Chairman, I have no objection.
Chairman GILMAN. No objection. The amendment is agreed to. All in favor of the Ackerman——
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. Yes.
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. MANZULLO. I have a question.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Manzullo?
Mr. MANZULLO. As I understand this, this Committee is going to add $5,000,000 to the budget to build a light water nuclear reactor in North Korea?
Mr. ACKERMAN. If I may, the additional $5,000,000 is to provide the North Koreans with fuel oil. They have agreed to close down their nuclear reactor, ending the threat of a possible nuclear war in the region. As you may recall, a war in that area cost us considerably more once before.
The South Koreans and the Japanese have agreed, with us agreeing to pay this $5,000,000, that they would put up the probably more than $10,000,000,000 eventually to build a power plant for them to supply cleaner energy that is non-nuclear potentially.
Mr. MANZULLO. Reclaiming my time, I am going to find it very difficult——
Mr. BEREUTER. Would the gentleman yield? Would the gentleman yield for further clarification?
Mr. MANZULLO. Of course.
Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman.
Actually, what we are proposing is to increase the limitation from $25,000,000, Mr. Ackerman is, to $30,000,000, which is an Administration request. It is a limitation on what the United States could contribute to KEDO.
This money does not go for the light water reactors per se, but it is dedicated to the provision of heavy oil as a replacement for that period of time in which we have down time in the North Korean energy program while they are proceeding with the construction of a light water reactor of South Korean design; two of them actually.
This is a limitation. This money does not go for the reactor itself. The Americans are picking up a heavy fuel cost in part. In part they are picking it up during this period of time.
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. MANZULLO. You know, I never was thrilled about this deal with building the reactors in North Korea as some type of a peace process, especially at a time when North Korea has continued to buildup their army and at the same time starve the civilians.
I think that perhaps, and I know the North Koreans want this energy source as much as anybody, but before the taxpayers are made to kick in an additional $5,000,000—can you imagine going back home and saying you voted to spend $5,000,000 more to build a nuclear reactor in North Korea because they promised that they would not engage in war if we built them a nuclear reactor for their energy?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MANZULLO. I find it very difficult that we are here discussing this. I know we are supposed to discuss it here, but——
Mr. ACKERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MANZULLO. Sure. Of course.
Mr. ACKERMAN. The gentleman should be assured that he can go back home and say that we are not building that reactor because in fact we are not. The agreement is that we have walked the North Koreans back from the cliff, from the nuclear precipice, because they have a nuclear reactor right now.
The deal is that they would give up their energy supply and build a new reactor that will be paid for by KEDO with Japanese and South Korean money in the tens of billions of dollars. In exchange for them giving up their entire nuclear program and closing it down, when they turn that switch off the lights go off in North Korea. They refuse to do that unless they have some kind of energy source to run their country.
Five million dollars is a very, very cheap price to pay. It is burden sharing that our Asian friends are shouldering to the nth degree, and our contribution is very, very tiny to avoid this nuclear conflict.
Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. MANZULLO. Aside from the policy, what if they wanted $5,000,000 in salamis?
Mr. ACKERMAN. I think that if we had some concern that there was a national threat from salami, we might consider the proposal.
Mr. MANZULLO. What I am saying to you is this could be the salami reciprocal bill because all we have is the good word of these nice people to just build us this——
Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. ACKERMAN. I am not sure who controls the time, but if it was me I would be delighted to yield to my friend, Mr. King.
Mr. MANZULLO. I thought it was my turn, but I would yield to him anyway.
Mr. KING. I would just say that if the deal does come down to salamis, I want Mr. Ackerman to give us his absolute assurance that Ben's Kosher Deli will not cater because I know he has a direct conflict of interest here, and I will be the first to raise it on the floor of the House of Representatives.
Chairman GILMAN. Your objection is noted.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Lantos?
Mr. MANZULLO. I will be glad to yield to Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. I just would like to say to the gentleman this is one of the most creative bipartisan foreign policy initiatives of recent years. It provides a civilized way of defusing the possibility of nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula.
The request to move our contribution, which is a tiny portion of the total cost, from $25,000,000 to $30,000,000 is the best bargain this Congress will engage in in this session.
Page 125 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time is expired. All time has expired on the Ackerman amendment as amended.
All in favor, signify in the usual manner.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Opposed.
[Chorus of noes.]
The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Ackerman, on your next amendment?
Mr. ACKERMAN. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will read the amendment. The clerk will distribute the amendment.
Mr. ACKERMAN. I have it at the table, I have been reminded.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Ackerman. In Section 421, strike $3,317,000,000 and insert $3,318,000,000. In Section 421(2), strike $3,273,250,000 and insert $3,274,500,000.
Chairman GILMAN. Gentlemen, under the previous order, the time is divided under the control of the Chairman and Ranking Member or designee.
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Ackerman, has 5 minutes.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would add $1,000,000 each year to the Foreign Military Financing account for the purpose of allocating the President's request of $3,000,000 for FMF for the Caribbean for each of the next two fiscal years.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, FMF is designed to assist friends and allies in financing procurement of U.S. defense articles, as well as services, to help strengthen their self-defense capabilities and meet their legitimate security needs. In particular, FMF allows Caribbean nations to sustain defense and maritime forces, allowing these island nations to maintain small professional forces essential to regional peace and security.
Page 126 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
For a very small investment, we receive increased regional interoperability and cooperation with U.S. forces, improved ability of peace keeping units to deploy to regional and international peace keeping operation, and an increased willingness to participate in such operations, as well as in humanitarian assistance missions and regional conflict prevention mechanisms.
Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to support this amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. As far as I know, Mr. Chairman, it is our belief that Mr. Gallegly well supports this amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. Does any Member on the Majority side wish to be recognized on the amendment?
Any other Member wishing to be recognized?
This side is prepared to accept the amendment. All in favor of the Ackerman amendment, signify in the usual manner.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Opposed.
[No response.]
The amendment is agreed to.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. We now recognize Mr. Payne for his amendment.
Mr. Payne.
Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is an amendment at the desk.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will distribute the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
Page 127 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Payne. At the end of Section 453 of the bill, add the following: C) Requirements Relating to Morocco. Section 514 of such Act is amended by adding at the end of the following a new subsection.
Chairman GILMAN. I ask unanimous consent further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Gentlemen, under the previous order the time is divided under the control of the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member or his designee.
The gentleman from New Jersey has 10 minutes.
Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have an amendment that deals with the situation in Western Sahara. For the last 20 years, there has been a dispute. It began with three countries taking claim to Western Sahara when the Spanish left it as one of its colonies. It boiled down to two. Now there is just one country disputing, the territory of Morocco.
There has been attention brought to this amendment recently. Secretary General Kofi Annan has appointed the former Secretary of State James Baker to be a special envoy to the area.
This amendment asks that the President be assured that weapons that are acquired from the U.S. by Morocco are not to be used against the Western Saharas. As you know, there has been some conflict there. The United Nations is there with the peace keeping operation, and they are attempting to have elections to come into the area.
This is similar to years ago when Portugal had colonies in Africa. We restricted NATO weapons from being used against Angola or Mozambique and Guinea Bassau. This is similar to that.
It is difficult to enforce, but the spirit of this is that Morocco should be restricted from using weapons from the U.S. military against the Western Saharans at this time when this discussion is going on and the United Nations are engaged.
Page 128 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. GEJDENSON. I am sorry. I do not want to cut the gentleman off.
I would like to take time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I think that if you listened to the debate here before about drug policy and other things, when we take people who are not following the policy that we like, we kind of directly comment on what they are doing. We do not seem to get anywhere.
Here is a government that has been friendly and supportive, that is following the rules. It has not indicated any desire to break the cease-fire in the region. The new military equipment would not affect the balance of power in the Western Sahara.
Morocco has been a friendly government, a government in the leadership of the peace process. When we could not find two Arab nations to meet with the United States and try to further the peace process, the Moroccan Government was there. The Moroccan Government has continued to be supportive. They have led efforts to try to integrate the area economically. They have followed the U.N. in this dispute. They have gone I think and done everything you could ask them to do.
I have the greatest admiration for my friend from New Jersey, but I would hope that we would resoundingly defeat this amendment. This is a government that in a world that is besieged by extreme fundamentalism, is a moderate government trying to do the right kinds of things in the region, moving forward economically, and I think it would be the gravest of injustice to pass some language that to a large degree may be gratuitous, but clearly an insult to a government that has been friendly and helpful to almost every issue the United States has had from Africa through the Middle East. I would hope we would resoundingly defeat my good friend's amendment.
Page 129 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reclaim my time for a moment.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Payne.
Mr. PAYNE. I appreciate the comments from my colleague.
You know, it sounds like the cold war. Mobutu was our best friend. He stole for 32 years taxpayers' money. We watched him as he bought properties in France and in Belgium and the rest of the places. Of course, Morocco went in and supported him and propped him up when he was at the point of being overturned.
I think that we have to take a multi-faceted look at policy. South Africa I guess is great, too, under the apartheid regime because they are post communism. Of course, they murdered blacks and imprisoned people for years and years.
When we take a look at a country and say they are so great because they have one policy that is positive, I think we need to take a look at if they are illegally using weapons against a country. If the U.N. is attempting to have elections, then I do not think that that is very positive.
I agree that they did a great job in Desert Storm. They were the first Arab country to come in. I supported that, too. By the same token, that does not mean that they are the greatest thing in the world because they came into that particular conflict.
I would hope that people will listen to what I have said and maybe reduce the decibels and just try to clearly see that right is right, and we should not base our policy on the behavior in one area when there are abuses in others.
I yield back my time to anyone, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to my friend from New York, Mr. Houghton.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Page 130 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
I would like to talk about the Payne amendment. I really think it is quite a good amendment. We have met with people from both sides. Clearly there has been a problem there. Congressman Payne is offering this amendment. All he is asking is that the Kingdom of Morocco not use against the Sarawe people the arms or any assistance we give them.
I voted for Mr. Gejdenson's amendment, and in it it talks about restricting our arms transfers to countries that are engaged in acts of armed aggression. This is exactly what is happening here. Morocco was a good country. They are doing acts of aggression.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Reclaiming my time, I do that for several reasons. One, you probably should have got time from Mr. Payne.
There has been a cease-fire in place here for 6 years without a violation. This is not a country that has shown any aggressive military action.
Mr. PAYNE. Would you yield? With no violations? Come on, now. There has been violations.
Mr. GEJDENSON. You have your own time. I will be happy to give you time.
This government in Morocco——
Mr. PAYNE. I just want to correct an incorrect point.
Mr. HOUGHTON. When I can get time, I would like it, whenever it is appropriate.
Mr. GEJDENSON. I take back my time just so that I do not lose it all on the other side of the argument.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Payne is controlling the time on his side.
Mr. GEJDENSON. If you are giving the time on Mr. Payne's time, then I will——
Mr. PAYNE. I yield to Mr. Houghton.
Page 131 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. HOUGHTON. I do not have a great deal more to say, but I just think there is a basic decency here. Although there may not be any affirmed acts of aggression, there have been, and they have hurt a lot of people. It is just putting our record or our feelings against a group of people that really need help.
Chairman GILMAN. I recognize Mr. Royce, who controls 10 minutes of the time.
Mr. ROYCE. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I ask for unanimous consent that I could offer a substitute for the Payne amendment.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Reserving the right to object, can we see a copy of the gentleman's amendment?
Mr. ROYCE. Yes. They are at the desk.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will distribute the amendment, and the clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Substitute amendment offered by Mr. Royce. At the end of Section 453 of the bill, add the following:
C) Requirements Relating to Morocco. Assistance under this title may be made available to the Kingdom of Morocco in fiscal years 1998 and 1999 if the Secretary of State determines and reports to the Congress that such assistance will be used by the Kingdom of Morocco in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1084 relating to the Western Sahara dispute.
Chairman GILMAN. Is there an objection to the unanimous consent request? If there is no objection, so ordered.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I suspect that this is language that everyone here can support. Basically there is a cease-fire in effect in Western Sahara, so the use of American arms is not currently an issue there.
Page 132 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
To the extent that the new amendment would tie the use of American weapons to the U.N. peace process, this measure confirms American support for an effort that both sides have committed themselves to. Former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker just completed a visit to the region in an effort to accelerate the U.N. peace process. I think we need to support his efforts, which this new amendment does.
The substitute amendment would represent an evenhanded policy toward the peace process in Western Sahara, so I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if this substitute was accepted everyone on the Committee could support that, and I think it would be a positive step.
Chairman GILMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROYCE. I will yield.
Chairman GILMAN. I am pleased to join in supporting the Royce substitute to the Payne amendment.
I am concerned that the Payne amendment may be perceived by the parties to the Western Sahara dispute as too one sided and could complicate the mission of former Secretary of State James Baker, who has been named special envoy to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and is over there at the present time, as I understand it, trying to mediate this problem.
This is certainly a delicate time in the Western Sahara peace process. The Committee should not be perceived as favoring one side's position over the other. While I recognize the goal of Mr. Payne, I would hope that this amendment that is being suggested by Mr. Royce will clarify the current restrictions in place regarding the use of American supplied military equipment to Morocco.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Royce?
Mr. ROYCE. Yes?
Mr. ROTHMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I just have a question. First, I want to state my admiration for both Mr. Payne and Mr. Royce, but I do have concerns about even the substitute amendment.
Page 133 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
I am not comfortable with the U.S. Government, particularly the Eexecutive Branch or even the Congress for that matter, acquiescing, if you will, to judgments of the United Nations and saying that our foreign policy will be tied to a vote, a majority vote, in a United Nation body, as august and as distinguished as the Security Council body is.
With respect, I am not sure that the substitute amendment is a good precedent for us to follow tying our policy to a majority vote in the body of the Security Council, and the other is that I, unfortunately, have not been apprised of this problem with regard to Morocco violating the rights of its neighbor. I do not think I am alone in this.
Until I am sufficiently apprised of facts to support the allegations, I feel we have to support an ally, if you will, who has been with us in many difficult fights, and so I would not want to tie Morocco's hands.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. ROYCE. Let me make a point. As you state, you do not want to support a resolution that was won before the United Nations.
I want to remind you that this is a resolution that we supported before the United Nations. This is something that the United States is in support of, and indeed it is an attempt to get a cease-fire in what is a——
Mr. ROTHMAN. Will the gentleman yield for 10 seconds?
What if the facts on the ground change and the United States supports a new resolution with regard to this incident? We will have had this already carved into stone.
The lack of flexibility is the one problem, and the other is the precedent where we tie ourselves to a majority.
Mr. ROYCE. I just want to remind you. We are trying to get a just and lasting peace. That is the sense of the resolution that we supported in the United Nations. We have in place a cease-fire. We are trying to make certain that cease-fire holds. That is the purpose here today, and that is why I offer the resolution.
Page 134 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. Let me just tell both sides where we are at. Mr. Payne has used 6 minutes, and Mr. Royce has used 6 minutes.
Mr. Payne?
Mr. PAYNE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. First of all, really it would be the first time that Western Sahara has certainly taken the edge over Morocco in your interpretation, but I would be willing, Mr. Chairman, to accept the Royce amendment. I think that it is in the spirit.
I do agree with my new colleague from New Jersey that the United States does have a little bit to say as what happens in the U.N. As a matter of fact, if we do not want something to happen in Security Council in the United Nations, it does not happen.
We are really in accord on this matter. We are looking for justice. Justice has to be looked at as to what is right, not what you did in the past that was right or what you may do in the future that is right, but you have to take each issue as they come. That was the reason I talked about Mobutu in Zaire, at one time an ally of the United States. I never supported that particular position, but that is the way it is.
I would withdraw my amendment and support the Royce amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman GILMAN. Will the gentleman state his parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, you have divided the time, as I understand it, between Mr. Payne and Mr. Royce.
Chairman GILMAN. Yes.
Mr. LANTOS. Where does that leave us who are opposed to both of those amendments?
Page 135 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. You will ask for time on either side.
Mr. PAYNE. Does Mr. Lantos want time? I will be glad to yield time. I did not realize he wanted some time. I yield time to Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. I appreciate my friend yielding very much.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Lantos, if I might interrupt?
Is Mr. Payne making a unanimous consent request to accept the Royce amendment?
Mr. PAYNE. Exactly.
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection. The request has been made to amend the Payne proposal by the Royce amendment. All in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Opposed.
[No response.]
Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, there are not many Members of this body for whom I have higher regard than my friend from New Jersey, Mr. Payne, but I strongly oppose his amendment.
Morocco is one of the few countries, and it would be very easy to count them on the fingers of one hand, in that part of the world that are peaceful, progressive and friendly to the United States.
I find it inconceivable at a time when Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism is sweeping much of that region, where almost every week we see items in the paper of those terrorists killing 50 or 500 individuals in Algeria, that next door in this peaceful country of Morocco which is the greatest friend of the United States of any country in that region, we should be establishing new criteria, punitive criteria, embarrassing criteria.
Page 136 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
My friend from New Jersey is looking for justice. When he says so he means it, and so do I. I do not think you get it by hitting Morocco, a well established, long standing, loyal friend of the United States that is far more free, far more free, far more democratic, far more pro American, than any country in that entire region. I only wish there would be more Moroccos in North Africa. We would all be better off, and the region would be better off.
I strongly ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. This would be a major mistake to send a signal to the Moroccan Government that all of their singularly unpopular moves supporting U.S. policy were in vain, their commitment to building a democratic society are in vain because the Congress of the United States slaps them.
I think this is an ill advised amendment, and with great respect for my colleague I urge everyone to oppose it.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I ask for my time back. I would like to yield to Mr. Andrews from New Jersey.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Payne, you have used 8 minutes.
Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you. I thank my colleague for yielding.
I speak in support of his amendment citing what this amendment is not. First of all, it is not a blanket condemnation of the actions of the Kingdom of Morocco. It is a selective criticism, and I think a very merited criticism, of the actions of Morocco in the Western Sahara.
Second, this is not an amendment that is out of balance with respect to separation of powers or out of balance with respect to bilateralism. It respects the authority of the executive branch to make judgments about whether there has been compliance with the U.N. process, and it in fact is grounded in the efficacy of the U.N. process that has been agreed to on a multi-lateral basis.
Finally, the amendment is not inflexible. It says that when there is change and when there is demonstrable progress by the Moroccan Government on this issue that our conduct and our behavior will respond accordingly.
Page 137 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
I think that the amendment is the perfect tool to deal with a delicate situation. It is not overly inclusive or under inclusive, and I would urge my colleagues to support it and yield back.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Andrews.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes. Mr. Chairman, this is a one sided assault on the Moroccans. It does not talk about anybody else on this planet. We take the one country——
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, whose time is he using? I have not yielded to him.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Royce, Mr. Gejdenson is asking you for some time.
Mr. ROYCE. We do not have too much time left for Mr. Gejdenson.
Chairman GILMAN. If you could make your point succinctly, Mr. Gejdenson?
Mr. GEJDENSON. I will. This is not just another country. This is not Mobutu's country. This is a country that has followed every democratic principle. It has followed our desires in the Sahara, and then we take them, of all the countries, and we bring them up and put some additional language on them.
I would like to hear what the Administration has to say about this language. This is people who are taking the greatest risk in the most unstable part of the world and then holding them up to some ridicule. Frankly, I know that is not the intent, but that is what it is going to do.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, we will hear from the Administration.
Page 138 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Ms. Larkin?
Ms. LARKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Gejdenson, you will be glad to hear that we agree with you this time.
We oppose the amendment for a number of reasons, all of which have been articulated here, but particularly the fact that Morocco has been especially helpful in connection with the Middle East peace process. I would also point out that they have received defense goods and articles from the United States that they have used in connection with multi-lateral operations such as Desert Storm, as well as Bosnia.
I would also like to comment, if I could, on the terms of the substitute. There is a concern about the reference to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1084 and that that resolution could change during the period of time in which this law would be in effect. The Secretary would then be in a position of certifying to an obsolete provision.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Royce has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. ROYCE. Reclaiming my time, I want to make it clear to the Members that this is something that Morocco has agreed to. This is a resolution that Morocco has agreed to.
We are talking about finding a just and lasting solution to the question of the Western Sahara, and we are talking about maintaining a cease-fire. I think there have been expressions made here. We recognize that this is an ally of the United States.
Mr. LANTOS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROYCE. No, I will not yield because I only have a minute left on my time.
Certainly we agree that this is an ally of the United States. This is, as I say, a point that Morocco has agreed to. The former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker just completed a visit there in an effort to accelerate the U.N. peace process. We need to support his efforts. That is what this amendment does.
Page 139 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
The substitute amendment would represent an evenhanded policy in the peace process there, and I close by saying again this is a point that Morocco has agreed to.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I would just——
Chairman GILMAN. Time has expired.
Mr. PAYNE. I think I have half a minute left. I will conclude, if you would. I would just like to——
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Payne.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman has raised a point of order. Would the gentleman state his point of order?
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, in the agreement that we unanimously accepted, and I know you have tried to balance it out after a mis-step at the beginning there, we agreed that the time would be divided equally between those in opposition to a resolution and those——
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, that was not the agreement.
Mr. GEJDENSON [continuing]. who are proponents.
Mr. PAYNE. The agreement was that the Republicans would have 10 minutes, and this side would have 10 minutes.
Chairman GILMAN. That the time would be equally divided.
Mr. PAYNE. I would like to reclaim my time.
Mr. GEJDENSON. I am making a point of order.
Mr. PAYNE. The gentleman is out of order. I would reclaim my time.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Payne, let me just respond to the point of order raised by Mr. Gejdenson.
Page 140 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. GEJDENSON. May I finish my point of order?
Chairman GILMAN. Yes.
Mr. GEJDENSON. I know these were good intentions, Mr. Chairman. I do not question your intentions.
As a result, however, of taking both Mr. Royce and Mr. Payne as the two controllers of the time, we are now in the process of closing the debate with two proponents of the amendment. That clearly was not the intent——
Mr. PAYNE. It is the new spirit of bipartisanship.
Mr. GEJDENSON [continuing]. worked out up here.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Gejdenson, you did have time to speak on the matter.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Payne has a half a minute remaining. If anyone requests time, they have to ask it of Mr. Payne.
Mr. PAYNE. Are you going to speak on my behalf? I will use my half minute.
Let me just say that I think that this is fair. I think that it is evenhanded. I think that it is something that even though our Administration opposes it, this is not the first time that we have differed with the current sitting Administration; as a matter of fact, probably as much as not.
I would just like to urge my colleagues that in justice and in moving forward the peace process, I urge your support for the Royce substitute to the Payne amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request.
Chairman GILMAN. The Payne amendment is now before the body.
Page 141 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. What is the gentleman seeking?
Mr. ACKERMAN. The gentleman seeks recognition, Mr. Chairman for a unanimous consent request.
Chairman GILMAN. What is the unanimous consent request?
Mr. ACKERMAN. I ask unanimous consent that in the interest of fairness and equity that Mr. Lantos be given control of an additional 3 minutes.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I object.
Chairman GILMAN. The time has been equally divided.
Mr. PAYNE. I object to the unanimous consent.
Chairman GILMAN. The unanimous consent was agreed to earlier, and the objection is heard.
The Payne amendment is now before the body as amended. All in favor signify in the usual manner.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Opposed.
[No response.]
The noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. PAYNE. On that, I ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. A roll call has been requested. Is there a substantial second? A sufficient second is noted. The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman?
Chairman GILMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes no.
Mr. Goodling?
Page 142 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. BEREUTER. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes aye.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. SMITH. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes yes.
Mr. Burton?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes.
Mr. Manzullo?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce?
Page 143 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Mr. ROYCE. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce votes yes.
Mr. King?
Mr. KING. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King votes no.
Mr. Kim?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. CHABOT. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes yes.
Mr. Sanford?
Mr. SANFORD. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford votes no.
Mr. Salmon?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton?
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes yes.
Mr. Campbell?
Mr. CAMPBELL. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell votes no.
Mr. Fox?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh?
Mr. MCHUGH. No.
Page 144 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh votes no.
Mr. Graham?
Mr. GRAHAM. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham votes note.
Mr. Blunt?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Moran?
Mr. MORAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Moran votes no.
Mr. Brady?
Mr. BRADY. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady votes no.
Mr. Hamilton?
Mr. HAMILTON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hamilton votes no.
Mr. Gejdenson?
Mr. GEJDENSON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson votes no.
Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos votes no.
Mr. Berman?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. No.
Page 145 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes no.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega votes yes.
Mr. Martinez?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne?
Mr. PAYNE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes yes.
Mr. Andrews?
Mr. ANDREWS.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes yes.
Mr. Brown?
Mr. BROWN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown votes yes.
Ms. McKinney?
Ms. MCKINNEY. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney votes yes.
Mr. Hastings?
Mr. HASTINGS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings votes no.
Ms. Danner?
Page 146 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard?
Mr. HILLIARD. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes yes.
Mr. Capps?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman?
Mr. SHERMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes no.
Mr. Wexler?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman?
Mr. ROTHMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman votes no.
Mr. Clement?
Mr. CLEMENT. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Clement votes yes.
Mr. Luther?
Mr. LUTHER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Luther votes no.
Mr. Davis?
Mr. DAVIS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes no.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will call the absentees.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling?
Page 147 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr Hyde?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton?
Mr. BURTON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton votes no.
Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes no.
Mr. Ballenger?
Mr. BALLENGER. I will pass.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger passes.
Mr. Manzullo?
Mr. MANZULLO. I pass.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo passes.
Mr. Kim?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon?
Mr. SALMON. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon votes yes.
Mr. Fox?
Page 148 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blunt?
Mr. BLUNT. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blunt votes no.
Mr. Berman?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Andrews?
Mr. ANDREWS. Did you call my name? I am sorry. I vote yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Andrews votes yes.
Ms. Danner?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Capps?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler?
[No response.]
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the vote.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Martinez wants to know how he is recorded.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez?
Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report Mr. Manzullo's vote.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo votes present.
Mr. Ballenger votes present.
Mr. BALLENGER. Aye.
Page 149 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes yes.
I am sorry. Mr. Martinez?
Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez votes yes.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the vote.
While the clerk is recording the vote, I just would like to note to our colleagues that we have one more measure, and we will be done very quickly.
Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote, there are 18 ayes and 20 noes.
Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is not agreed to.
The clerk will designate the next title.
Ms. BLOOMER. Title V, Economic Assistance.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I happen to see out in the audience Mrs. Thomas Foley, Heather Foley, who is there. I think it might be appropriate if we recognize the former spouse of the Speaker.
[Applause.]
Mr. CAMPBELL. I think it is the spouse of the former Speaker.
Mr. HAMILTON. The spouse of the former Speaker. Excuse me.
We have been hearing some rumors about the prospects for Mr. Foley. We certainly hope that comes about. I am glad to see Mrs. Foley.
I also note that Catherine Porter is here. She has done some excellent work on the Kurds and the Kurdish problem. We are delighted to see here as well.
[Applause.]
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, as we consider Title V, I wish to reiterate that I believe the Development Assistance account is too low in this bill. Even with the Hastings amendment increasing that account, we are still below last year's appropriations level for the account.
Page 150 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
I believe that any chance of Democratic support for the bill will depend somewhat at least on restoring the DA account to a reasonable level. These programs help millions of people around the world, and I think they have been cut too much. I just want to make that observation at this point.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton.
I want to thank our colleagues for their patience. We have just one more measure for today, and we will reconvene tomorrow morning at 10 a.m.
I have an amendment at the desk which touches on two parts of the bill. I ask unanimous consent to offer the amendment. Is there an objection? If there is no objection, we will move ahead on the amendment.
The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman. In Section 512 of the bill and Subsection C of Section 104 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as proposed to be amended by such Section 512, strike such——
Chairman GILMAN. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
This is a child survival amendment. This amendment reflects our views and those of Mr. Callahan of the Foreign Operations Committee and Mr. Smith, the Subcommittee chairman of our International Operations Committee.
What we are doing is expanding and defining the very small section of the Foreign Assistance Act that deals with child survival and disease programs. You all know that the Appropriations Committee created this account 2 years ago, and it now totals $600,000,000.
We believe the authorizers should now give formal scope and guidance to this account. Our purpose in this measure is simple—substantial, direct and measurable impact on child morbidity and morality. We want to make certain that these programs are targeted directly on saving children's lives.
Page 151 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Will the Committee come to order please?
This language creates four main categories of child survival, direct impact, other survival programs, basic education and other disease activities. We set the priority on a direct impact with the child survival programs that should be primarily devoted. In the Committee report, we will define this as being the major component of the program, not necessarily 50 percent.
By this measure, we are also calling for a report on child survival spending within these four categories and recommend that $30,000,000 of the funding go through the private voluntary organizations. We have also boosted funding for this account by $45,000,000 to meet this year's current spending on the program.
You will note that like the appropriators, we fund UNICEF out of this account and will reduce the voluntary contribution to the International Organizations account in Division B accordingly.
Members may have seen stricter language in earlier drafts. You may remember that H.R. 1561 last year included a sub-earmark. These strictures were removed, and there is no sub-earmark, all done under recommendation of the Administration and Chairman Callahan of the Appropriations Committee in meetings we held just yesterday.
I commend the work of Mr. Callahan, Mr. Smith and others who worked together on this measure.
I call on Mr. Smith for his comments.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your leadership on these child survival issues.
I do urge a very strong yes on this amendment. Its purpose is to insure that funds authorized for child survival programs really do save children's lives; that is, that they will primarily be directed to activities that have a substantial, direct——
Page 152 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith, if you will withhold?
I am asking our Members if they would just stay for a few more minutes so that we can have a vote on this measure.
Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The activities have a substantial, direct and measurable impact on saving the lives of children. It does this in three ways. First, the amendment divides the activities covered by the fund into four categories, direct impact child survival programs such as vaccinations and oral rehydration that directly intervene to save a child's life who otherwise might surely die, other child survival programs, basic education programs for mothers and children and adult disease programs.
The amendment directs that child survival activities shall be primarily directed to activities whose primary purpose is to save children's lives which have a direct and substantial impact on the savings of these lives.
The amendment also increases the amount authorized for the child survival and disease fund to $600,000,000, the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997. I would just note parenthetically that the Administration had requested a $55,000,000 cut in child survival and disease programs, and I think with all the work that needs to be done that would be a very ill-advised course of action.
Let me just remind Members that the child survival revolution that has occurred has been extraordinary in the number of lives that it has saved. I know going back to early 1984 and 1985 when I first jumped in with both feet, I went and visited several of the mass vaccinations that were occurring.
As a matter of fact, one time in El Salvador I went with Jim Grant, the former director of UNICEF. They had a day of tranquility in El Salvador, and the FMLN and the government laid aside their weapons for a day while tens of thousands of kids were vaccinated against the leading killers of children.
Page 153 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Since then, many other countries have jumped in, have joined in with UNICEF and PAHO and the U.S. Government efforts, and literally millions of kids have been saved. As a matter of fact, according to UNICEF, immunization programs now prevent the death of some 3,000,000 children each and every year. One million children's lives are being saved every year by the use of oral rehydration therapy, the use of the salts. Polio has been eradicated in the Western Hemisphere, and some 12,000,000 infants are now protected annually from mental retardation thanks to salt iodization.
Let me just remind Members, too, that simple interventions like Vitamin A and other kinds of low cost health interventions save kids, increase their productivity and their prospects for a gainful, happy life and a life less riddled with diseases and the like.
This is a very good amendment. Again, it keeps our focus where it should be, and I also think it helps to point out to the American people that when foreign aide is trashed as it is in all of our districts, this is one thing we can hold up without anyone contradicting us. For pennies we can save children's lives.
I urge strong support for this amendment. It is a good amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith, and we thank you for your work on child survival.
Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I know you want to conclude, and I support that.
I regret I cannot support this amendment. I do not have any doubt about its popularity, but I just want to point out what is happening here. You are reducing some parts of the child survival program, and you are increasing money for other parts of the child survival program.
For example, you are cutting money back on safe water and sanitation. You are increasing it for a lot of very good things. There is not any doubt about that, but what you do with this kind of an amendment is you cut down the amount of money available in the Development Assistance account, you micromanage the efforts in the field to deliver services, you restrict the flexibility of the workers in the field to deliver these services, all for very good reason.
Page 154 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
This is a very hard amendment to oppose because you are increasing money for very good activities, but I do think you reduce the amount of money for economic growth, for sustainable development, for population programs, and I just do not think it is a wise thing for the Congress to try to micromanage and put in a lot of rules here. More flexibility should be given to those in the field.
I oppose the amendment. I understand its popularity. I will not ask for a vote on it.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton.
Anyone else seeking recognition? Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Two things.
First on this, let me say that there are many of us on this side who indeed absolutely support what Mr. Smith is trying to do, but I think that it would not be responsible for our side if we did not point out the irony in the process in that we do, as Mr. Hamilton would probably state, rob Peter to pay Paul.
We are taking this out of other very good causes, or at least $100,000,000 or so, but there is an additional $45,000,000 or so that is put on the table in this bill that nobody has asked Mr. Smith where he is getting that money.
Although it is for a good purpose, some of us on this side are certainly willing to go through the numbers and appropriate that for this important cause. The irony is that when others of us in this room have proposals that we are required to identify what we are cutting back and the source of those funds.
We just hope that everybody and everybody's proposal would be treated equal here, Mr. Chairman. Nonetheless, we do support it, and I do not believe anybody on our side is going to ask for a recorded vote on this.
The second point I would like to make is a point of personal privilege, and that is directed both to Mr. King and Mr. Manzullo, and that is that even as we speak, my New York staff advises me that there are kosher salamis on their way on the shuttle, and you should be receiving them in the very, very near future.
Page 155 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman, for that very important information.
Is there anyone else seeking recognition? Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I was going to suggest to the gentleman from New York to also include matzo ball soup.
I do want to support the amendment of the gentleman from New York. The only thing that I would express concern over is I had hoped that perhaps it would have included a provision concerning child labor problems that we face, if you know what I mean.
Mr. SMITH. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I gladly yield.
Mr. SMITH. I think the gentleman will be very pleased to know that in H.R. 1253, Part 2, the second section of this bill, we earmarked $10,000,000 per year for the ILO for that very specific purpose.
We pulled that right from the bill that you were very supportive of and I introduced last year so that the ILO can work on strategies country by country, action plans, if you will, to try to eradicate child labor. We do have that provided for elsewhere in the bill.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the gentleman for including that.
Chairman GILMAN. If there is no one else seeking support, the question is on the Gilman amendment. All in favor signify in the usual manner.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Opposed.
[Chorus of noes.]
The amendment is agreed to.
The Committee stands in recess until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.
[Whereupon, at 4:43 p.m., the Committee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday May 1, 1997.]
Page 156 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 3
Next Hearing Segment(2)